partisanship

Saturday December 7, 2024

Rising food prices are the result of complex, interrelated global factors, and partisan blame games oversimplify the issue, preventing constructive solutions.

December 7, 2024

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday December 7, 2024

The Futility of the Food Price Blame Game

Despite rising grocery prices, Thanksgiving 2024 offers an opportunity to reflect on the privileges many Canadians still enjoy, like access to affordable food and relative safety, even as global challenges intensify.

October 12, 2024

Food is vital for nourishment, family gatherings, and cultural traditions. However, rising food prices often lead to blame games that oversimplify the issue and ignore the complex factors involved.

Canada’s Food Price Report predicts grocery bills will increase by 3–5% in 2025, adding about $800 per year for a family of four. Instead of constructive discussions, the debate focuses on accusations about carbon taxes, corporate greed, climate policies, and the Canadian dollar’s value.

Some blame the carbon tax for rising costs, claiming it heavily impacts farmers and consumers. While it does play a role, experts say it only contributes a small fraction to food prices, overshadowed by global feed prices, droughts, and supply chain issues. Conversely, accusations against corporations for price hikes often overlook larger systemic problems, such as disease outbreaks and extreme weather.

News: Food prices could jump by up to 5% in 2025, and researchers say loonie is partly to blame

The recent announcement that Loblaw Companies Ltd. and other major retailers are ready to sign on to Canada's grocery code of conduct is being presented as a significant step toward fairer practices within the grocery supply chain. However, this development is unlikely to bring about the substantial changes needed to address the deeper issues affecting the industry and consumers.

May 18, 2024

The rising cost of food results from multiple factors. Climate change causes severe weather disruptions, a weak Canadian dollar increases import costs, and labor shortages further complicate matters. It’s unfair to pin these challenges on a single policy or entity.

For instance, beef prices rose by 9.2% in 2024 due to global droughts affecting cattle herds. Vegetable prices also reflect production challenges related to extreme weather.

Solutions like subsidizing farmers can help but may favour larger operations over smaller farms. Quick political fixes, such as cutting carbon taxes or taxing corporations, oversimplify the issue and ignore its complexities.

September 29, 2022

This blame game undermines trust in more thoughtful solutions, leaving citizens confused and policymakers paralyzed. We need to address rising food costs with a nuanced approach—investing in climate-resilient agriculture, supporting local production, and promoting pricing transparency without vilifying all businesses.

Improving public discourse is essential; citizens deserve clear explanations rather than partisan rhetoric. Food is fundamental, and reducing it to a political tool harms everyone, especially those struggling to afford it. We need collaborative, thoughtful solutions rather than slogans and scapegoating. If we don’t move beyond the blame game, we risk perpetuating a cycle of inaction.

Here’s a little something to go along with my latest editorial cartoon—because honestly, what is it about rising food prices that brings out every self-proclaimed expert wielding their magic wand of “obvious” solutions? This phenomenon goes hand in hand with the social media cesspool, where armchair analysts feel compelled to weigh in on every complex issue with their wingbat theories, whether it’s immunology, the constitution, or Middle East peace.

Take food prices, for example. A casual scroll through the comment sections under coverage of The Food Price Report—you know, the one predicting Canadians will see meat and vegetable prices jump three to five percent in 2025—will make your head spin. Everyone’s suddenly an expert on global supply chains, fiscal policy, and the exact carbon footprint of a cucumber. Some blame climate initiatives like the carbon tax for “starving us,” while others point the finger at “greedy corporations” pocketing obscene profits. The shouting match unfolds like a digital food fight, with misinformation flying in every direction.

Meanwhile, the reality of why food prices rise is painfully complex: droughts and floods wiping out crops, the weak Canadian dollar making imports costlier, labour shortages, and yes, even some corporate profiteering. But you’d never know it from the partisan bickering that drowns out any meaningful discussion.

So here’s my cartoon to poke fun at the absurdity of it all. Because while the blame game is easy, addressing systemic issues? That’s the part that takes real work. Let me know your thoughts—or share your own favourite “expert take” you’ve seen floating around. I could use the laugh!

Please subscribe to my Substack newsletter, if you haven’t already. Posts come out every Friday as I summarize the week that was in my editorial cartoons. What you’re reading now is regarded as a “note”, which is used to help compose my weekly posts and showcase the animated versions of my daily editorial cartoons. Subscriptions will always be free – as long as my position remains as a staff editorial cartoonist. Thanks.

Here’s the making-of clip of my cartoon in the Saturday December 7 2024 edition of the Hamilton Spectator. Sound on and volume up, please…

– The Graeme Gallery

Read on Substack

Saturday April 13, 2024

The popularity surges of leaders like Justin Trudeau and Pierre Poilievre highlight the perilous tendency of voters to invest unrealistic faith in political figures, underscoring the importance of maintaining critical analysis and skepticism in democratic engagement.

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday April 13, 2024

The Peril of Blind Faith in Leaders

In the turbulent landscape of Canadian politics, the trajectory of leaders often mirrors the ebb and flow of public sentiment. From Justin Trudeau’s buoyant “Sunny Ways” to Pierre Poilievre’s resolute call to “Axe the Tax,” the resonance of political slogans underscores the power of messaging in shaping public perception. Yet, behind the rallying cries lies a cautionary tale of blind faith and the perils of placing unwavering trust in charismatic figures.

Abacus Data Poll: Conservatives open up their largest lead yet

September 28, 2012

Trudeau’s ascent to prominence in 2015 was marked by the optimistic promise of “Sunny Ways,” an ode borrowed from Wilfrid Laurier that evoked a spirit of positivity and inclusivity. The rallying cry encapsulated Trudeau’s appeal as a unifier, promising a departure from the adversarial politics of the past. Canadians embraced this vision of hope, drawn to Trudeau’s youthful energy and progressive agenda.

However, the stark realities of governance soon tempered the sunny optimism. Promises of electoral reform faltered, controversies emerged, and disillusionment crept into the public consciousness. The fall from grace was a stark reminder that political charisma alone cannot sustain enduring trust.

June 14, 2022

Today, we witness the rise of Pierre Poilievre, whose mantra to “Axe the Tax” resonates with disaffected segments of society grappling with economic challenges. Poilievre’s unapologetic stance against carbon pricing embodies a populist fervour, tapping into frustrations over rising costs of living and government interventions. The simplicity of “Axe the Tax” belies deeper complexities, yet it strikes a chord with those yearning for decisive action.

As Poilievre’s star ascends, it is imperative to heed the lessons of history. Political slogans, while captivating, should not serve as substitutes for critical analysis and informed scrutiny. The allure of a bold disruptor must be tempered with a healthy dose of skepticism, recognizing that governance demands more than catchy phrases and populist appeals.

Analysis: Poilievre’s Youth: Meet the young voters supporting the Conservatives

September 1, 2018

The parallel trajectories of Trudeau’s “Sunny Ways” and Poilievre’s “Axe the Tax” highlight the cyclical nature of political fervour. The initial euphoria of a new era often gives way to sobering realities, underscoring the importance of vigilant citizenship and active engagement.

The pitfalls of blind faith in leaders are manifold. It fosters a cult of personality that prioritizes rhetoric over substance, stifles dissent, and discourages nuanced discourse. By succumbing to the allure of political slogans, we risk overlooking the complexities of governance and the need for evidence-based policymaking.

In an era marked by uncertainty and rapid change, the imperative for critical analysis cannot be overstated. As Pierre Poilievre garners support with his rallying cry, let us approach with discernment and vigilance. Let us challenge oversimplifications and demand substantive solutions that address the complexities of our times.

March 5, 2012

The narrative of political leadership is a dynamic interplay of ideals and realities. By embracing skepticism and eschewing blind faith, we honour the principles of democracy and empower ourselves as vigilant stewards of our collective future.

In the pursuit of a resilient democracy, let skepticism be our compass and critical analysis our guiding light. As slogans come and go, let us remain steadfast in our commitment to informed engagement and unwavering scrutiny, recognizing that true progress demands more than mere adulation—it requires diligent citizenship and an unwavering dedication to the common good.

Together, let us navigate the currents of politics with clarity and foresight, ensuring that the lessons of history guide us towards a future shaped by informed decision-making and principled leadership. (AI)

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:

Friday March 5, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday March 5, 2021

Pandemic Partisan Pile-ons

March 2, 2021

Only three months ago, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau rose in the House of Commons and said that, when it came to vaccinations for COVID-19, Canada was in a superior position compared with its global peers. 

The government’s planning, he said, “resulted in us having the best portfolio of vaccines of any country in the world, with more doses per capita than any other country.”

But as of this week, Canada ranked behind more than 30 countries 

in vaccination rates. Its number of inoculated citizens stalled in February, hovering at about 5 per cent – while peer countries such as Britain and the United States, as well as poorer countries such as Chile and Morocco, have accelerated their rollout.

The government has assured Canadians the faltering start is now in the rearview mirror and a rapid increase in vaccine deliveries will see the country closing the gap.

On Wednesday, Mr. Trudeau said he was optimistic that Canada will be able to surpass his stated September deadline for getting shots to everyone. That end-of-summer deadline is in line with one set by Germany but behind Britain and the U.S.

How did the government go from proclaiming its performance was “the best” to fending off accusations that it had failed its citizens?

January 28, 2021

A Globe and Mail analysis has shown the Trudeau government’s lofty promises were never consistent with several hard realities: a severe lack of manufacturing capacity in a world obliged to vaccinate their own citizens first, as well as contracts with vaccine suppliers that appear to contain less-advantageous delivery schedules than those inked by Britain and the U.S.

What’s more, rather than prepare Canadians for an inevitable lag at the start of the vaccination schedule, the government relied on soaring rhetoric. It told Canadians it had hedged its bets and assured success by signing contracts with multiple international pharmaceutical giants. And although it’s certainly true that Ottawa placed wise bets on the vaccines first out of the clinical-trial gate – those developed by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Oxford-AstraZeneca – it didn’t properly explain to citizens that the global inoculation race had two distinct phases: first to purchase the vaccines and then to secure them.

“Canada, for some reason, was very quick to make purchases and really slow to invest in the manufacturing piece. I don’t know what went into those decisions,” said Andrea Taylor, a researcher with Duke University’s Global Health Innovation Centre, which has been tracking vaccine procurements around the world.

“They may have had more faith in the global supply chain than other countries.” (Globe & Mail) 

February 25, 2021

Meanwhile, Shipments are ramping up, more COVID-19 vaccines are getting approved, and expert advice to stretch the gap between doses means millions of Canadians could get the protection of a first dose sooner than expected. 

Taken together, those changes represent a significant shift from the delays and consternation that marked Canada’s national vaccine campaign in recent weeks.

But they have also left Ontario scrambling to keep up with the pace. 

Facing criticism over failing to prepare for the long-foreseen surge of doses that Ottawa ordered from overseas, Premier Doug Ford’s government is now set to table an updated vaccination schedule on Friday. 

The plan comes after a week that saw existing timelines — which were widely criticized as too vague and too slow — suddenly in flux. (Toronto Star) 

 

Saturday November 2, 2019

By Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday November 2, 2019

Impeach Trump. Then Move On.

Is it possible that more than 20 Republican senators will vote to convict Donald Trump of articles of impeachment? When you hang around Washington you get the sense that it could happen.

September 27, 2019

The evidence against Trump is overwhelming. This Ukraine quid pro quo wasn’t just a single reckless phone call. It was a multiprong several-month campaign to use the levers of American power to destroy a political rival.

Republican legislators are being bludgeoned with this truth in testimony after testimony. They know in their hearts that Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses. It’s evident in the way they stare glumly at their desks during hearings; the way they flee reporters seeking comment; the way they slag the White House off the record. It’ll be hard for them to vote to acquit if they can’t even come up with a non-ludicrous rationale.

And yet when you get outside Washington it’s hard to imagine more than one or two G.O.P. senators voting to convict.

In the first place, Democrats have not won widespread public support. Nancy Pelosi always said impeachment works only if there’s a bipartisan groundswell, and so far there is not. Trump’s job approval numbers have been largely unaffected by the impeachment inquiry. Support for impeachment breaks down on conventional pro-Trump/anti-Trump lines. Roughly 90 percent of Republican voters oppose it. Republican senators will never vote to convict in the face of that.

August 23, 2018

Second, Democrats have not won over the most important voters — moderates in swing states. A New York Times/Siena College survey of voters in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin found that just 43 percent want to impeach and remove Trump from office, while 53 percent do not. Pushing impeachment makes Democrats vulnerable in precisely the states they cannot afford to lose in 2020.

Third, there is little prospect these numbers will turn around, even after a series of high-profile hearings.

I’ve been traveling pretty constantly since this impeachment thing got going. I’ve been to a bunch of blue states and a bunch of red states (including Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah). In coastal blue states, impeachment comes up in conversation all the time. In red states, it never comes up; ask people in red states if they’ve been talking about it with their friends, they shrug and reply no, not really. 

Prof. Paul Sracic of Youngstown State University in Ohio told Ken Stern from Vanity Fair that when he asked his class of 80 students if they’d heard any conversation about impeachment, only two said they had. When he asked if impeachment interested them, all 80 said it did not.

Fourth, it’s a lot harder to do impeachment in an age of cynicism, exhaustion and distrust. During Watergate, voters trusted federal institutions and granted the impeachment process a measure of legitimacy. Today’s voters do not share that trust and will not regard an intra-Washington process as legitimate.

Many Americans don’t care about impeachment because they take it as a given that this is the kind of corruption that politicians of all stripes have been doing all along. Many don’t care because it looks like the same partisan warfare that’s been going on forever, just with a different name.

Fifth, it’s harder to do impeachment when politics is seen as an existential war for the future of the country. Many Republicans know Trump is guilty, but they can’t afford to hand power to Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.

March 31, 2017

Progressives, let me ask you a question: If Trump-style Republicans were trying to impeach a President Biden, Warren or Sanders, and there was evidence of guilt, would you vote to convict? Answer honestly.

I get that Democrats feel they have to proceed with impeachment to protect the Constitution and the rule of law. But there is little chance they will come close to ousting the president. So I hope they set a Thanksgiving deadline. Play the impeachment card through November, have the House vote and then move on to other things. The Senate can quickly dispose of the matter and Democratic candidates can make their best pitches for denying Trump re-election.

Elizabeth Bruenig of The Washington Post put her finger on something important in a recent essay on Trump’s evangelical voters: the assumption of decline. Many Trump voters take it as a matter of course that for the rest of their lives things are going to get worse for them — economically, spiritually, politically and culturally. They are not the only voters who think this way. Many young voters in their OK Boomer T-shirts feel exactly the same, except about climate change, employment prospects and debt.

This sense of elite negligence in the face of national decline is the core issue right now. Impeachment is a distraction from that. As quickly as possible, it’s time to move on. (David Brooks, NYTimes)  

 

Wednesday September 11, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday September 11, 2019

Why is it so hard for Independent candidates to get elected to Canada’s House of Commons?

May 28, 2019

Canada has not had a strong Independent movement since Confederation when there were several Independent politicians in government. They were called “loose fish” and operated separately of political structures, explains John English, director of the Bill Graham Centre for Contemporary International history at Trinity College.

When the party system began to take hold at the turn of the century under Canada’s first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, these “loose fish” declined in numbers. The party structure became the main source of funding for candidates and also provided patronage appointments to important positions such as the railway or the post office.

November 9, 2018

Independents made a brief resurgence in the Second World War. When Prime Minister Mackenzie King broke his promise of conscription, Quebec Liberals declared themselves Independent (but still affiliated with the Liberal party for the most part).

By the 1960s, Independents became especially rare in Canadians politics, limited only to “those candidates who got kicked out of their party or decided their interest didn’t align with party values or the party leader,” English said.

The debate over the strength and influence of central party power in politics isn’t new, either. Collenette says this discussion has been occurring within parties for years, but “the question now is larger because its not contained in the party anymore.”

Promising the moon

The main reason Canada doesn’t have more Independent politicians is because “they don’t win,” Thomas said. Before campaign finance legislation changes were created in 1974, local electoral campaign officers would identify supporters and then get supporter to learn the name of the candidate. Now, voters are more likely to recognize party labels than individual names.

David Moscrop, political scientist and author of “Too Dumb for Democracy,” agrees that central party authority needs to be loosened but worries about the tradeoffs. First, it’ll require a lot of cooperation from parties, civil service, staffers, leadership and media. (“I don’t think that is going to happen,” Moscrop says.) Then you have to balance loosening party control while maintaining party cohesion. (“How do you do that?” he asks.) (National Observer)