I think Donald Trump's plan to build a wall with Mexico is the loopiest thing I've ever heard. But I'm not sure that I could provide a detailed explanation as to why it makes no sense.In fact, despite all the fuss made about Trump's promised wall, I rarely recall anyone really explaining the intricacies of US-Mexico border security and why a wall is unnecessary.Don't worry, I am not trying to defend Donald Trump's wall. What I am trying to do is demonstrate the shallowness of much of our public policy debates — the fact that, when it comes to government policy and actions we oppose, we rarely seem to ask the "why" question.We are all frustrated with the status quo and there is a palpable desire for change. Yet change in politics is a funny thing. Government inaction is rarely borne out of politicians' ignorance or disinterest in bringing about positive results.As someone who spent years in government, I can tell you that all politicians, regardless of their political stripes, would love to see pressing problems solved. The challenge, however, is that most issues are too complex; they conflict with other priorities; or they demand too many resources to be easily addressed. As a government minister, or even a political staffer, I often asked the public service to explain why we couldn't simply adopt the obvious solution to the issue of the day. The explanation often left my head spinning as I realized the messy implications of proceeding with any course of action.You wouldn't know this from listening to the critics. To them, it is all about those at the top not caring.As a provincial politician I so often heard the refrain "if all politicians had to live six months on Ontario Works, our social assistance system would be reformed overnight," that I wanted to scream. And these days you don't have to go far to hear the charge that "if the Trudeau Liberals weren't such hypocrites", they would live up to their promise of action on climate change and cancel pipelines. And what of Indigenous issues? I recently attended a presentation where the speaker, after painting the picture of an uncaring federal government, called for the investment of billions and billions more with an almost throwaway casualness.Don't get me wrong, there is great value in those voices from the outside demanding immediate action with little regard for excuses. But it has its limits.Isn't there a more productive conversation to be had?What if we checked our demand for action at the door, just for a moment, and instead asked for an explanation — an honest one? Why does the government of Ontario claw back the earnings of those who find part-time jobs while on social assistance? Why will the federal government not fully adopt all of the terms of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? Is it true that the federal government gives oil companies massive subsidies? If yes, why?The answers might surprise you. Not because they are all convincing, but because they start to reveal that these policies are far from straightforward. They are often closely connected to other issues, and action usually involves serious trade-offs that are not always obvious.More importantly, demanding explanations forces politicians to clarify their positions, often exposing weaknesses and gaps in their arguments that create room for action. It also forces the critics to sharpen their arguments as they respond to these explanations and, at times, even become self-critical about their own positions. Who knows, it might even lead to both sides having to engage on issues and make some progress.Some will say that they have had enough of excuses. But if they cannot rationally respond to the explanation offered by our political leaders, then their criticism is hollow. And yet, when was the last time you heard a commentator explore the history and context of an issue, outline the opposing position, and provide a thoughtful response?It does happen. And those are the opinion columns that you email to friends, the books that you recommend, or the television interview that you mention to colleagues over morning coffee.We claim to be concerned about the increasing polarization of our society. And yet our response has been to create an overly simple narrative: The bad guys are in charge in Washington. Canadians had bad guys in charge in Ottawa, but we threw them out and replaced them with good guys who maybe aren't so good after all. If we only could simply find someone prepared to take the necessary action to solve the pressing issues of the day.This narrative is not going to cut it. Progress is only going to come about by creating a better understanding of all perspectives on issues —their strengths and their weaknesses — including our own, and being personally prepared to have the difficult conversations.John Milloy is a former MPP and Ontario Liberal cabinet minister currently serving as the Director of the Centre for Public Ethics and assistant professor of public ethics at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, and the inaugural practitioner in residence in Wilfrid Laurier University's Political Science department. He is also a lecturer in the University of Waterloo's Master of Public Service Program.  John can be reached at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter @John_Milloy.