Column by Buck Ryan

The big bailout has turned me into a one-issue voter. No, I’m not talking about Wall Street. I’m outraged at the candidates who bailed out of KET’s debates.

If candidates won’t debate on KET, then I say let’s throw the bums out. But wait, who’s left? When many of the congressional incumbents declined to debate, they scratched their opponents, too, right?

These are the times that try men’s souls, and the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, so what would Thomas Paine or Franklin Roosevelt think about politicians skirting the public arena at a time of crisis? Shame on you for making them roll over in their graves.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s not too late. Take a deep breath, call Bill Goodman at KET and register your vote for the First Amendment. Just say something like, “Bill, at a time when change is in the air, I’ve changed my mind and decided to take you up on your kind offer. Please let me know, at your earliest convenience, when I can come to KET’s studios and mop the floor with my opponent.”

If you dread being labeled a flip-flopper, I offer you a second opportunity: meaningful public deliberation.

Come join us at UK for a Citizen Kentucky roundtable discussion on the future of America. If we videotape the forum, perhaps KET will show it so the people of the Commonwealth can hear your best ideas.

We’ll produce the program as a conversation starter. After all, We the People need to come together to work with you on solutions, especially if we want public policy to work.

This deliberative approach has been the heart of the Citizen Kentucky Project, designed to engage young people in civic life, since we began producing KET programs: “Beyond O.J.: A Public Journalism Forum on Domestic Violence” (1995); “More Than Free Speech” on the state of the First Amendment in Kentucky at the turn of the century (1999); “Citizen Kentucky: Democracy and the Media” (2002); and “Citizen Kentucky/Citizen China: Hope for a New Century” (2008).

The key is the difference between debate and deliberation. Debates, based on conflict, produce a winner and a loser. Journalism, also based on conflict, is a kissing cousin, especially when reporters use opinion polls after the debates to inject steroids into their horse-race political coverage.

Deliberation offers three or more options to discuss, not two candidates head to head. The focal point, such as the future of America, reframes the discussion so candidates can talk to the people. Candidates check their personal-attack Tasers at the door and publicly weigh pros and cons, trade-offs and consequences of different courses of action.

Imagine all our congressional incumbents in the same room listening to people talk about how they are being personally affected by, let’s say, the economy. Then the elected officials explain what they have proposed or will support in Congress. Now imagine all their opponents engaged in the conversation, and somewhere in between the public gets added to public policy.

As the scientist says at a time of crisis in the movies, “Sounds crazy, but it just might work.” Stay tuned. Come Nov. 4, whatever you do, please vote for the First Amendment.