Check Yes or No?

Although I've noted elsewhere some things I like about President Obama, I won't pretend I'll be sorry when his White House tenure ends. But I think he's taking a bum rap over the expense of his upcoming visit to India and parts east.

Folks are somewhat peeved that the total number of people involved in this trip is about the size of a small town, somewhere near 3,000. It's likely to cost quite a bit, although not the $200 million a day some excitable folks suggest or the $2 billion total (plus 34 ships -- ten percent of the U.S. Navy's floatin' iron) an even more excitable talk show host has claimed. Of course, some of those claims are based on figures given by Indian officials touting the stringent security arrangements being made for the president's trip, and it's safe to say they're a bit excited about it.

That kind of cost, if true, would be excessive, but sometimes when you want to make a good showing, you lay it on a little thick. India's been a little out of sorts because this visit has taken two years to arrange, and they feel a little neglected. English-language papers in that country have also played up that this is one of the largest, if not the largest, group a U.S. president has ever taken to another country. In addition to his staff, security and media representatives, the group includes business executives who will meet with Indian counterparts to explore different kinds of economic cooperation between the world's strongest and wealthiest democracy and the one billion people of the world's largest democracy.

And if it takes the equivalent of bringing some roses and a box of chocolates along to smooth some ruffled feathers, I don't see that as such a bad idea. As I mentioned, with a population of more than one billion people, India is the world's largest democracy. Although it still has widespread poverty, in some cases at a level of destitution that ought to make any American weep, it's also a functioning democracy. India has ethnic and regional differences that, to be replicated in this country would require something like Oklahoma sending tanks into Kansas (and not stopping until they hit the Dakotas because that whole part of the country looks the same). But despite that, it is by no means the poorest nation in the world and that same riotous palate of diversity, overlaid with a couple of centuries of British acculturation, makes it one of the most fascinating places on earth.

Attention is rightly paid to China, which has more people that India and is in a lot of senses, a more advanced nation technologically. But there are fissures in China, not the least of which are the coming demographic time bomb promised by the one-child policy its totalitarian government mandates. Or the male-female imbalance that policy promotes in a society that values sons more than daughters as a better bet for taking care of Mom and Pop when they get too old to work -- 119 boys are born in China for every 100 girls, meaning that nearly one-sixth of Chinese men are doomed to live like George Costanza, and that can't be good for the nation. Plus, China's interests and the U.S.'s don't always coincide, as we are supposed to be a bit sniffy towards totalitarian regimes that arrest people for giving away Bibles and run tanks over people who decided to publicly express their opinions.

So travel away, Mr. President! Flash some cash while you're there, schmooze a bit and tell them they've got that little something special none of the other girls in class do. It'd be great if you could do something substantive, like one business coalition suggests, and lay the framework for a real free-trade agreement between the U.S. and India, but I'm a guy too, and I know we sometimes have issues with commitment. But even if we can't put a ring on it this time, maybe we might at least let her wear our letterman's jacket.

(ETA link about China's one-child policy once I finally found the story I'd been looking for)