Neither addresses the truth in what the other said. Instead they both offer responses without acknowledging the truth in what the other has said. Inevitably, rather than finding common ground, the discussion leads to frustration as each retreats into parroting empty slogans that divide rather than unite.

This exchange exemplifies today’s public discourse. We repeat divisive slogans without engaging with the realities the other side raises. We are conditioned to defend our own narrative rather than listen carefully enough to discover where common ground might exist — and solutions found.

Slogans have replaced solutions as signals of political identity. We see this playing out in Maine’s ongoing Democratic Senate primary. When Israel and Gaza is raised, there is no actual discussion. Instead candidates are asked to swear fealty to such phrases as “Gaza genocide” and “Free Palestine.”  

Reducing complex issues to simplistic sloganeering tells us far more about candidates’ tolerance for self-serving conformity than it does their capacity for thoughtful leadership. If we want leaders capable of solving complex problems, we should stop requiring that they embrace convenient passwords and start asking them to demonstrate capacity to accept complexity. 

With respect to Israel, a person can support that Israel has an unquestionable right to exist while also questioning the decision-making of its government. A person can unequivocally support Israel’s right to defend itself and prevent future attacks while also believing that Gazans deserve to live in peace with a real outlook for a successful and prosperous future. These positions are not inherently inconsistent and can be a framework to take on the difficult task of grappling honestly with competing truths.