ABSTRACT
Public diplomacy has never been the favorite offspring of US foreign policy. More often it is considered a poor relation, faintly disreputable, with no particular merits in the past and of doubtful relevance in the present time—not to be discarded altogether, but to be kept at a safe distance. The most basic weakness of public diplomacy is the fact that it has no powerful domestic constituency. Even the most militant antidefense legislators will fight like lions if threatened with the closure of military installations in their congressional district. Still more arguments are adduced by skeptics considering public diplomacy a double-edged sword likely to cause more harm than good. Opponents of public diplomacy frequently argue that the private sector should shoulder the responsibility, which is about as sensible or practical as suggesting that it should be responsible for US defense, health, education, and the cleaning of the streets.
