You can’t succeed in the political arena without a brand. On the right, we firmly believe in traditional values and freedoms and that translates to a brand with integrity and pride and it’s easily relatable. Simply put, foundational, conservative values touch hearts and minds because we raise up what people know to be right, even as they are pushed to distrust their own core beliefs. And doing the pushing? The left and the liberal media, of course.

As we saw this past election cycle, however, the left has crafted a brand that can’t last because its foundations are unsound. Crafted from superficial signals ranging from ineffective boycotts to pointless and crude marches, the left is floundering under the weight of its own aggression and hypocrisy.

Failing Religious Freedom

If we had to point to a single reason why the left’s branding is such a disaster, we would have to point to their rhetoric around religious freedom. The left loves to spout off about how important freedom of religion is, why we must respect the beliefs of others, even if those beliefs lead to attacks on our country or a fracturing social foundations. We must respect religious beliefs, the left says, unless those beliefs stem from Biblically-based Christian faith.

The minute anyone speaks from a place of Christian faith, the left rises to the attack, though they brand themselves as the party of peace and reconciliation. Based on their church affiliation, the left went after HGTV stars Chip and Joanna Gaines due to a belief they were “homophobic.” They forced an independent bakery to close because the Christian owners wouldn’t bake a gay wedding cake.

Imagine the backlash if we were to approach Orthodox Jewish people or Muslims with the same kind of aggression -- Democrats would be out in droves to declare our party corrupt, anti-Semitic, or Islamophobic. But when they do the same thing to Christians, the left is lauded as being on the side of liberty. Don’t be fooled -- it’s exactly the opposite.

Making Meaningless Media

Do you consider Elle magazine and it’s cohorts in the fashion world to be news media? Last we checked, these magazines were densely populated with advertisements, full of makeup and clothing advice, and otherwise empty of real content. They’re ideal for branding -- for creating visibility or pushing a product -- but they aren’t an outlet for content with any real depth. Unless you’re a Democrat, that is.

In May 2015, in the midst of her mother’s ultimately failed presidential campaign, Chelsea Clinton appeared on the cover of Elle magazine. This was a strange choice as the younger Clinton isn’t a fashion icon, a major political figure herself, or really all that interesting. She’s done some correspondent work, spoken at SXSW, and was named a junior provost at NYU, a university known to coddle liberal and minority students at the expense of real education. Yet, when you look at that cover, it’s clear that there’s an ulterior motive at work. This is an attempt at political messaging, and it’s a lesson in what not to do.

By putting Miss Clinton on the cover of a glossy fashion magazine, the left is trying to simultaneously polish her mother’s image. They’re attempting to remind the public that the disastrous, affair-blighted marriage between Bill and Hillary Clinton perhaps yielded something worthwhile, someone you should keep an eye on. And we should keep an eye on Chelsea Clinton, if only because we can expect that Clinton dynasty to attempt another power grab under her name in the future. It’s the only good reason to turn Chelsea into a cover girl.

Flubbing Free Markets

Liberal politics are at the heart of why there are no jobs left for American workers, so it’s no surprise that in an attempt to fluster the Trump administration, the left called for a boycott of Ivanka’s products. The boycott not only failed -- sales are up -- but it left us confused. What exactly was the message behind calling for such a boycott? What was it meant to accomplish vis-à-vis liberal politics? We guarantee that if liberals wanted to buy clothes only from people whose politics they agreed with, they would be sewing their own.

Successful political branding is contingent on having a clear message, yet the left’s message is muddled and hypocritical. It’s vulgar -- think pussy hats -- and an attempt to cloud real debate. If they can create enough misdirection within their own constituency, then perhaps Democratic voters will be too distracted to realize how inconsistent and ineffectual their own party’s politics are.

Ultimately, the left’s brand is headed in a dozen directions at the same time to the point of being completely incomprehensible. They’re so committed to fighting disparate aspects of our politics, to targeting narrow statements, that they’re unable to see the big picture, including the places where their own actions and beliefs contradict their attacks on ours.

You can’t believe in religious freedom for everyone but Christians. You can’t boycott Ivanka’s products and support the economy and workers. You have to choose a message, and the left hasn’t been able to complete this simple task. How could we trust them with anything more?