An Analogy

The other evening I had the pleasure of listening to "the standard conversation" about public diplomacy organized around the launch of a new book (A New Public Diplomacy) on the subject, edited by Phil Seib of USC's well endowed Center for Public Diplomacy. By the use of "standard conversation" I am not meaning to put anyone down--rather to point out how unremarkable it is for several hundred public diplomacy "enthusiasts" to gather and have almost exactly the same conversation every time.

If ever there was a subject that was "all talk and no action" it is public diplomacy. And this gathering of the faithful at the Newseum's First Amendment space really brought that home to me. The only question I had and I was happy to hold my piece was: "So what are we going to do about

it?" I did not bother to ask because I knew that there would be no consensus reply. The conversation had gone on long enough. And besides, the canopies and white wine beckoned. I am not the only one to notice that despite some high hopes, the Obama Administration has not exactly moved mountains on public diplomacy!

And that brings me to the "analogy" in the title of this essay. It struck me that the issues of public diplomacy and health care in America have a number of similarities.

For starters, everyone realizes that American Public Diplomacy (PD) and the US health care system are broken and there must be a solution or the situation will just get more and more serious. Yes, everyone realizes that we have a PD problem/health care problem. That's the easy part!

Second, but in each case there is absolutely no consensus as to how best to address this problem. In the case of PD there have been about four dozen reports or sets of recommendations over the past 10 years and for health care well I don't need to tell anyone reading this blog that there are a lot of ideas our there--most of which are mutually exclusive and many of which are counterproductive. There are thousands of pages of draft legislation. The devil truly is in the details.

Third, there is that awkward problem of money. The financial crisis and the exploding federal deficit has pretty well messed up the tried and true solution so beloved by Congress--that is, throw money at it. So we now have that wonderful phrase "deficit neutral."

Fourth, there is not even a consensus that this is an issue that the federal government has the lead on. For PD there are those who want the private sector to take over the job while for health care there are those who insist on a significant government role.

Fifth, there is a remarkable absence of leadership from the White House on the issue of public diplomacy just has there was (until recently) on the health care issue. Will this just be another case of too little too late?

And finally, in both debates, the solution is disarmingly simple. I suppose you expect me to tell you what it is? Maybe I will in the next posting. In the meantime, why don't you tell me what you think on one or both of these issues?