fringe – mackaycartoons

Friday November 1, 2024

November 1, 2024 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday November 1, 2024

A Trump Victory Is Too High a Price for Progressive Protest

Tuesday October 7, 2024

With just days left in one of the most consequential elections in U.S. history, progressives must confront a sobering reality: sitting this one out—or voting third party in protest of the Democratic Party’s shortcomings—risks delivering the White House back to Donald Trump. While Kamala Harris’s policies may not align with every progressive value, the consequences of voter fragmentation could be catastrophic. The time for ideological purity has passed; now is the time for pragmatism.

Harris has faced sharp criticism over her support for Israel amidst escalating violence in Gaza and Lebanon, causing alienation among Arab Americans and progressives concerned with U.S. foreign policy. This frustration is understandable, particularly given Harris’s alignment with figures like Liz Cheney and Richie Torres, signalling a more hawkish approach. But Nicholas Kristof’s perspective in the New York Times underscores the need to weigh these legitimate grievances against the devastating potential of a Trump presidency, which threatens democracy, civil rights, and the very progress so many have fought for.

Opinion: Don’t Let Liberal Purity Elect Trump

September 17, 2024

Recent headlines make it clear that Trump’s campaign is doubling down on divisive, inflammatory rhetoric. At a recent Madison Square Garden rally, Trump and his allies targeted marginalized communities with attacks on Puerto Ricans, Palestinians, African Americans, and Jews. A return to Trump’s brand of governance promises more of the same: a blend of authoritarianism, bigotry, and disregard for the rights and lives of vulnerable communities. Kristof’s message is clear: however discontented progressives may feel with the Democrats, opting out or protest-voting won’t serve progressive values—it will simply help hand the presidency to Trump.

This lesson isn’t new. In 2016, some progressives turned to third-party candidates, disillusioned with Hillary Clinton’s alignment with corporate interests. The result was a Trump administration that undid environmental protections, aggressively pursued restrictive immigration policies, and appointed a Supreme Court that subsequently reversed Roe v. Wade. A similar protest vote today risks even graver consequences, with Trump’s re-election likely emboldening extremist policies and undermining the very democracy that allows progressives to advocate for change.

News: What Kamala Harris’ troubling embrace of war hawks means

August 17, 2024

Progressives should recognize that sitting out or casting a protest vote will not push the Democratic Party leftward, nor will it dismantle the status quo. As Kristof argues, withholding a vote in this election isn’t a neutral act; it actively contributes to a Trump victory. Democrats may have their faults, but they remain open to dialogue and progress on issues like climate change, healthcare, and civil rights. Under Trump, however, there will be no space for compromise or progress—only further regression.

Some progressives may argue that refusing to vote for Harris is a way of “sending a message.” But this election is not about sending messages; it’s about protecting rights and preventing irreversible harm. A Democratic administration—however imperfect—offers a platform for advocacy and change. Kristof poignantly reminds us that while “purity” may be admirable, the cost of inaction will be measured in setbacks on civil rights, climate action, healthcare, and the safety of vulnerable communities.

News: LA Times Owner’s Daughter Rebukes Kamala Harris Over Gaza: ‘Genocide’

In the words of Michelle Obama at a recent rally, “This election is about protecting the future of women, minorities, and vulnerable communities from becoming collateral damage under Trump’s agenda.” Every vote counts, and abstention from the progressive camp edges the country closer to another Trump term. For those who champion progressive values, this election is a choice, not a referendum on ideals. The stakes are simply too high for purity to sabotage progress. A vote for Harris may not be perfect, but it is necessary.

Today, my pen (or more accurately, my stylus) found itself hovering over the battleground of our neighbour’s political climate. I’m sure most editorial cartoonists are locked in on Trump’s latest bait—a gimmicky photo-op where he donned a garbage collector’s uniform in a stunt aimed at twisting President Biden’s words. The scene is rich material. Trump claims Biden called all Republicans “garbage,” when in reality, Biden was criticizing specific inflammatory rhetoric aimed at Puerto Rico from a comedian at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally. No surprises here, really—Trump is an old hand at distorting the narrative to generate buzz and deflect from more pressing issues.

What stands out in this election is Trump’s mastery of distraction. Instead of presenting coherent policies, we get “he said, she said” toddler talk, with the actual issues buried in noise. Meanwhile, substantive discussions—particularly on the Middle East—are overshadowed. Kamala Harris has taken a hit with progressives frustrated by the administration’s approach to the Israel-Gaza conflict, but we’re missing the broader question: what would a Trump win mean for these communities? What might Harris be pressured to achieve on this issue, versus the entirely different agenda a second Trump term would pursue?

Working on this cartoon, I felt the tension between the satirical “fun” of drawing Trump’s antics and the heavier weight of what’s at stake. Progressives may not agree with Harris on everything, particularly foreign policy, but the choices are stark. Voting pragmatically for Harris is a step toward progress—even if it’s slower than many want. Allowing Trump to re-enter the White House, given his clear disregard for marginalized communities, risks undoing decades of hard-won progress. This election is less about ideological purity and more about protecting any chance of change, and with Trump on the ballot, sitting it out isn’t just a protest—it’s a risk Americans can’t afford.

– Graeme MacKay

Read on Substack

Friday April 26, 2024

April 26, 2024 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday April 26, 2024

Pierre Poilievre’s Chummy Relationship with Extremists Raises Concerns

September 9, 2023

In the world of politics, the company you keep can speak volumes about your values and priorities. Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre recently found himself under scrutiny after videos surfaced of him cozying up to protesters at an anti-carbon tax camp near the New Brunswick-Nova Scotia border. What’s most troubling is not just his presence at the protest but the enthusiastic encouragement he provided to individuals brandishing extremist symbols and messages.

During his visit, Poilievre was captured on video expressing support for the protesters, referring to their actions as a “good, old-fashioned Canadian tax revolt.” This, in itself, is not unusual for a political leader seeking to connect with disgruntled constituents. However, the context surrounding this protest raises serious questions.

News: ‘He will do anything to win’: Justin Trudeau slams Pierre Poilievre for not denouncing endorsement by infamous American conspiracy theorist

August 26, 2022

The group behind this protest, as highlighted by RCMP documents, is associated with an ideology described as “accelerationist,” believing in the inevitability of civil unrest or the collapse of governments. This is a far cry from the concerns of everyday Canadians struggling with the cost of living or the impacts of government policies.

Even more concerning is the presence of symbols associated with the Diagolon network, which RCMP views as a militia-like organization. Poilievre’s team attempted to distance themselves, claiming ignorance of these symbols, but the optics of a political leader aligning himself with individuals displaying such affiliations are deeply troubling.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau rightly pointed out the risks of Poilievre’s actions, accusing him of welcoming “the support of conspiracy theorists and extremists.” This is not just a political jab; it’s a valid concern about the kind of leadership Poilievre represents and the implications of normalizing extremist associations in Canadian politics.

Poilievre’s response, dismissing these criticisms and asserting that he simply opposes the carbon tax, is inadequate. Aspiring leaders have a responsibility not only to oppose policies but also to denounce extremism in all its forms. By failing to do so, Poilievre sends a dangerous message that pandering to extremist sentiments is acceptable in the pursuit of political gain.

Opinion: Pierre Poilievre is courting support from groups that spew hate. Is this really the alternative to Justin Trudeau we want?

February 8, 2022

The Conservative Party, under Poilievre’s leadership, should reflect deeply on the kind of political culture they want to foster. In a diverse and inclusive society like Canada, there is no room for flirtations with extremism or pandering to fringe groups. Political leaders must uphold principles of unity and tolerance, demonstrating through their actions that they represent all Canadians, not just a select few.

The risk of normalizing extremist rhetoric and affiliations is not just a matter of political strategy; it’s a threat to the fabric of our democracy. Poilievre’s eagerness to embrace these protesters without acknowledging the broader context of their affiliations raises serious doubts about his judgment and priorities.

As Canadians, we must demand better from our political leaders. It’s not enough to oppose policies; we must also reject the dangerous narratives that seek to divide us and undermine the values that define our nation. Pierre Poilievre’s actions should serve as a wake-up call for all Canadians who cherish unity, tolerance, and the fundamental principles of democracy. (AI)

Saturday September 9, 2023

September 9, 2023 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday September 9, 2023

Window Display Politics: Pierre Poilievre’s Balancing Act for Canada

July 28, 2023

Pierre Poilievre, at the helm of the Conservative Party of Canada, finds himself in a challenging position as he attempts to broaden his party’s appeal to a more centrist Canadian voting audience while deftly navigating the demands of its more extreme right-wing factions. Within the diverse landscape of the Conservative Party, there exists a mosaic of passionate groups advocating for policies ranging from catering to gun enthusiasts and Christian conservatives to embracing Trump-inspired ideologies and other far-right positions. Poilievre, however, recognizes that to secure electoral victories in a country as diverse and centrist-leaning as Canada, he must tread a complex and often treacherous path.

News: Poilievre riding high in polls as Conservatives meet for policy convention

June 14, 2022

One of the most significant challenges facing Poilievre is the intricate web of internal dynamics within his party. These power struggles, often characterized by competing factions vying for influence, have been a recurring theme in Conservative politics. The recent prominence of social conservative groups within the party, pushing for greater sway in areas such as nominations and candidate selection, underscores this ongoing challenge. These groups are known for their unwavering commitment to causes like anti-abortion advocacy and the pursuit of stringent restrictions on abortion access. While such positions may resonate with certain segments of the party’s base, they are seen as divisive and potentially unpopular among the broader Canadian electorate.

A pivotal moment in this internal power struggle was the recent nomination battle in the Ontario riding of Oxford. In this contest, Poilievre’s perceived preferred candidate emerged victorious, while a social conservative candidate was disqualified by the party’s leadership. The fallout from this incident revealed deep divisions within the party, with the Oxford community left fractured, and the outcome of the subsequent by-election in Oxford significantly impacted.

June 24, 2021

Furthermore, Poilievre faces the challenging task of reconciling his party’s stance on contentious policy debates, most notably the Conservative Party’s position on carbon pricing. The ability to maintain party unity and prevent internal dissent on issues like these is crucial for his leadership and the party’s electoral prospects.

Adding another layer of complexity is Poilievre’s willingness to engage with conspiracy theories, particularly those circulating around the World Economic Forum. While such engagement may resonate with certain segments of the party’s base, it raises concerns about the mainstreaming of fringe beliefs. These conspiracy theories, once relegated to the fringes of the internet, have increasingly gained traction in mainstream political discourse, fuelled in part by growing distrust of government institutions.

News: Conservatives to vote on controversial issues at Poilievre’s first policy convention as leader

February 26, 2021

As the Conservative Party convenes for its policy convention, Pierre Poilievre’s leadership and strategic decisions will be under close scrutiny. While he is not bound by every policy resolution put forward, his choices and strategies will undoubtedly shape the party’s image and determine its ability to resonate with a broader Canadian electorate. Balancing the demands of the party’s base with the imperative of securing wider support is an intricate and formidable challenge—one that will significantly impact the party’s fortunes in the upcoming federal election.

In the display window for all Canadian voters to consider, the Conservative Party plans to showcase a vision that transcends its internal divisions and speaks to the values and aspirations of a diverse nation. This vision will require Pierre Poilievre to deftly navigate the competing interests and ideologies within his party, presenting a compelling narrative that addresses the concerns of both traditional conservative constituents and the broader Canadian electorate. The choices made at this pivotal policy convention will shape the Conservative Party’s path forward, ultimately determining its success in the quest for power. (AI.) Editorial cartoon printed in the Hamilton Spectator.

Letter to the Editor – The Hamilton Spectator

Letter to the Editor

The red hats are coming

Graeme MacKay’s cartoon in the Saturday Specta- tor depicted exactly the vision that is coming from the Conservative party through Poilievre’s rhetoric. He actually uses the “broken country” themes and the “I can fix it” quote from Trump himself. Seems American right-wing Republicanism has taken hold in Canada. Red hats on the way? God help us all! Bernadette Homerski, Dundas

From sketch to finish, see the current way Graeme completes an editorial cartoon using an iPencil, the Procreate app, and a couple of cheats on an iPad Pro. If you’re creative, give illustration a try:

Thursday July 27, 2023

July 27, 2023 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday July 28, 2023

The Absurd Shadow Cabinet of Pierre Poilievre: A Comedy of Errors

September 1, 2017

In a stunning display of political theatrics, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre unveils his aptly named “Shadow Cabinet” – a motley crew of characters that seems to have jumped straight out of a science fiction sitcom. With the country hurtling towards an inevitable federal election, Poilievre’s desperate attempt at a “great reset” aims to revitalize his party’s chances against the neck-and-neck Liberals. But as the curtains rise on this farce, it becomes apparent that Poilievre’s antics are more likely to raise eyebrows than to win hearts.

Let’s start with the “Shadow Minister of Defunding the CBC.” Poilievre’s pledge to strip the CBC of its funding has earned him cheers from his conservative base. However, the catch is that he still supports Radio-Canada’s French services. It’s like trying to take away the main course while leaving the side dishes intact – a recipe for absurdity.

Next up, we have the “Shadow Minister without Portfolio: Barbaric Cultural Practices Crisis.” Yes, you read that right! Poilievre seems to be stuck in a time warp, defending controversial policies from past campaigns that have alienated immigrant communities. Perhaps he believes it’s an effective strategy to fight for the rights of barbaric cultural practices tip lines while ignoring the reality that times have changed.

August 26, 2022

Let’s not forget the “Shadow Minister of Proud Boys and Traditional Gender Roles.” Poilievre must be hoping to attract voters from the 1950s with this one. Embracing outdated ideas of gender roles and cozying up to extremist groups like the Proud Boys is sure to win the hearts of, well, no one.

And who could overlook the “Shadow Crypto Board President”? With cryptocurrencies facing scandals and plummeting prices, Poilievre’s support for Bitcoin sounds like a punchline. Promoting a “Ponzi scheme” that lost money for investors is hardly a winning policy.

Oh, and let’s not miss the “Shadow Minister of All Lives Matter.” In a country that values diversity and inclusivity, this choice can only be described as tone-deaf and insensitive. Poilievre might as well appoint a “Shadow Minister of Ignorance and Division.”

Moving on, we encounter the “Shadow Trumpism Minister.” Because nothing says “leadership material” like emulating a divisive former U.S. president who is far from popular with a significant portion of the Canadian population.

May 13, 2022

And who could forget the “Shadow Minister of Conspiracies and Pseudo-Science”? Poilievre’s enthusiasm for anti-vaccine sentiments and promoting unfounded conspiracy theories only proves that he has a flair for the absurd.

Lastly, we have the “Shadow Apologies for Past Apologies Minister.” This is the perfect role for someone who seems to be stuck in a never-ending cycle of defending past mistakes and refusing to learn from them.

As the spotlight shines on this ridiculous cast of characters, one has to wonder if Poilievre is serious about winning the hearts of Canadians or if he’s auditioning for a role in a political comedy. It’s clear that his desperate bid for support from fringe elements and conspiracy theorists is leading him down a path of absurdity.

If Poilievre wants to be taken seriously as a leader, he needs to step out of the shadows of extremism and embrace a vision that truly represents the diverse and inclusive Canada we know and love. Until then, the show must go on – a comedy of errors that leaves Canadians shaking their heads and wondering what happened to the once-respectable Conservative Party. (AI)

Tuesday October 20, 2020

October 27, 2020 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday October 20, 2020

Declaration calling for end to lockdowns is about politics, not public health

It’s name — Great Barrington Declaration — seems an attempt to make it sound important, even authoritative. It is neither. Rather, “it’s callous, dangerous nonsense” in the words of American microbiologist and immunologist John Moore.

June 5, 2020

Moore was one of thousands of medical and public health experts reacting to last week’s carefully scripted release of the so-called declaration, which essentially calls for and end to lockdowns and allowing people to be infected by COVID-19, so eventually herd immunity would be realized. The idea is that people most at risk of dying and serious illness would be locked down, and the rest of society would return to “normal,” with people less likely to die being exposed to the virus.

Herd immunity happens when a significant portion of the population is exposed to a virus, so that it stops spreading because a critical mass of people have become immune to it.

There are two ways to achieve herd immunity. The first is to administer an effective vaccine. The second, proposed by the three academics behind the declaration, is to basically let the virus run free until enough people become infected.

The first option is what the world’s medical and scientific community is working feverishly at accomplishing. The second is discredited by virtually all credible experts, other than those driven by libertarian ideology, as appears to be the case here.

August 7, 2020

Consider: Since anyone over 65 is automatically at higher risk of serious outcomes, all those people would need to be locked down. In Canada, that would be about 20 per cent of the population. Try to picture what it would look like if 20 per cent of the population was basically locked away while the virus raged unrestrained in the rest of the population.

Experts say that to achieve herd immunity, 70 per cent of the population would need to be infected. That’s 70 per cent of Canada’s approximately 37.6 million people. That means something like 26 million Canadians would need to be infected in order to achieve herd immunity. To Oct. 15, just under 176,000 Canadians had contracted COVID-19. Even given that many cases have gone unreported, that is an unthinkable rate of disease spread.

Try to imagine the implications on our health-care system of that many people being infected. It’s true that younger, healthy people generally don’t get as sick as higher risk people, but if only a fraction of those millions became seriously ill, hospitals would be overwhelmed. And imagine how many people would suffer long-term health effects? And how many locked-down at risk people would become sick based on the sheer volume of infected people?

September 24, 2020

All of this is magnified many times in the United States, where the pandemic has been so badly managed and continues to spread disastrously. So perhaps it’s not surprising that this horribly inhumane, destructive approach is popular at the Trump White House. (Britain’s Boris Johnson is also a fan of herd immunity by massive death toll.)

In truth, this declaration has little to do with public health. It’s all about a political viewpoint. It’s a crank, dressed up as in credible clothes. While the authors may be credentialed experts, the work itself is funded by far right conservative interests. The American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), where the declaration was signed, is a libertarian think tank committed to “pure freedom” and wishes to see the “role of government … sharply confined.” So, if this is a crock, why waste time writing about it? Because, it’s a crock carefully disguised to look and feel credible. The world’s science and medical community quickly exposed this attempt, but it won’t be the last, which is why we need to remain on guard. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial)