Remember when Hilary Clinton labelled many of Donald Trump's supporters “deplorables”? Many Americans were delighted with this move. Until that moment Clinton had run a low-key campaign and she seemed to be finally taking on all those racist, homophobic, climate change-denying, misogynistic Trump supporters who wanted to turn back time. Here at home, I imagine that many Canadians also cheered, especially those who consider themselves small “l” liberal– the types who make up the majority in the House of Commons, dominate our media and influence our national policy agenda. This same group would probably also love it if someone made similar remarks about those backing Kellie Leitch for the Conservative Party Leadership or the people who voted for Sam Oosterhoff, that social conservative 19 year old that just won that provincial byelection in Ontario. While we are at it, how about calling out those two thirds of Canadians who told pollsters that they supported screening immigrants for “Canadian values” last September? We need to be careful.  Just as the “deplorables” comment ultimately backfired for Clinton, describing those who support Leitch or Oosterhoff as uninformed or backward only feeds a dangerous “us and them” narrative. You know the one.  On one side are those that embrace change. We describe them as “progressive, sophisticated and enlightened”.  Then there are those who are fearful of change.  We describe them as “wrong”. Or, if we are feeling generous, yet patronizing, we also point out that they can't help it.  Lack of education, geography or socio-economic status has prevented them from understanding the truth. If only there was a government program that gave them all subscriptions to the New York Times. Don't we see the dangers of this narrative? How healthy is it for a society to be run by an elite that has such little respect for those that don't share their views? More importantly, can we not see how easy it is for the unexpressed and unacknowledged frustration of many to be exploited by the likes of Trump or Leitch and divide us further? There is no question that there are elements on the right in both the US and Canada who represent the worst that society has to offer; racists and bigots who should be condemned. But the vast majority of those who are uncomfortable with many aspects of mainstream thinking are simply overwhelmed. And should we blame them? Think about what has happened over the last 35 years. Personal rights have taken centre stage and attitudes about sexuality and reproduction have been radically altered. We live in a world of assisted dying; the promise of legalized marijuana; same sex marriage; increased acceptability and access to abortion; and an increasing focus on transgender rights. Our country is growing more diverse as we welcome a growing number of individuals from Asia, Africa and the Middle East who embrace unfamiliar religions and cultures. There is a growing gap between the rich and poor and technology continues to replace those jobs that are not being outsourced to other countries with cheap labour. We have seen a growing threat of terrorism and although we are constantly told that climate change is going to destroy the planet, the only solutions offered by those in charge seem to involve hitting the little guy with more taxes and fees.  Meanwhile, despite the fact we may all welcome the conveniences brought about by the digital revolution, it has also dramatically changed our social interactions. And the list goes on. We need to talk.  We need to listen. And each side needs to admit that they don't have a monopoly on the answers. We also need to get to know each other.  And although it is crucial for someone who opposes immigration to interact with Muslim Canadians or someone opposed to assisted dying to talk with a suffering individual anxious to access the procedure, it can't stop there.  We also need those who embrace society's permissive views on sexuality to listen to parents concerned about new sex-ed curriculum or environmental activists to spend time with someone living paycheque to paycheque who is not exactly welcoming of a carbon tax. Is it going to radically change anyone's mind?  No, but it might create an understanding and perspective that is often woefully missing in our current public policy debates, reduce fears and maybe even identify areas of common action. There is a role for everyone in facilitating these conversations, not simply our political leaders.  It would seem natural, for example, for our faith communities to make building these bridges a central theme of their activities in Canada. I recognize that what I am suggesting is a tall order and dividing society into progressives and “deplorables” is easier, more enjoyable and may make many of us feel superior.  The real question, however, is how these labels strengthen us for the better. John Milloy is a former MPP and Ontario Liberal cabinet minister currently serving as the co-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.