Sarah Palin came under fire in 2008 when it was revealed that the Republican National Committee spent $150,000 on clothes for her and her family after she was chosen as the Republican vice-presidential candidate, belying her “hockey Mom” image.

And then, of course, there was Imelda Marcos and her shoes. Which is the issue: Such consumption patterns are more associated with a plutocracy (and those who identify with it) than with a democracy.

In that context, to spend enormous sums on appearance is not just indicative of a skewed value system, it’s morally reprehensible. It runs against a puritan streak that goes deep in American mythology. It’s the worst kind of gross excess and self-indulgence. It represents a focus on self to the detriment of the welfare of others, as well as some sort of embarrassing display of emotional neediness.

Because here’s the other thing: In the indictment, Mr. Manafort is listed as having spent $849,215 at the New York store and $520,440 in California, of which $128,280 was paid in one go in 2010. It’s really difficult to spend that much money on men’s wear. What was in his shopping cart?