September 25, 2024 • 53 mins
In this episode of "The Fourscore Project," Roger Clark interviews Professor Ken Miller, the author of "Texas vs. California," to explore the political, economic, and cultural differences between these two influential states. The conversation delves into the historical similarities that once aligned Texas and California and how these states have diverged dramatically in recent decades, representing opposite ends of the American political spectrum. Miller discusses the impact of economic policies, natural resources, and cultural identities on the political leanings of each state. The episode also touches on the broader implications of these differences for the future of the United States, considering the ongoing battle between progressive and conservative ideologies. The discussion offers insights into how these states embody competing visions for America's future.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:21):
My name is Roger Clark, and I'm your host.
Today on this episode of the Fourscoreand Seven Project.
We're focusing our discussion today
on Texas versus California.
Think of it this way.
If this was a professional boxingmatch, we'd have in this corner
(00:41):
in the Blue Trunks, California,with weighing in at 40 million people
with a reach of the fifth largest economyin the world.
In this corner here in the red trunks,we have Texas
weighing in at 30 million people
with a reach of the ninthlargest economy in the world.
We're very fortunate to have the gentleman
(01:04):
who literally wrote the book
called Texas versus California,
Professor Ken Miller, the Rose professor
at the Rose Instituteat Claremont McKenna.
Welcome.We're very happy to have you here.
Thank you,Roger. It's a pleasure to be here.
You have a J.D.
(01:25):
and doctorateof jurisprudence from Harvard, I believe.
And you have a Ph.D. in
political science,I believe from Berkeley.
That's right. Berkeley.
And then we should also mentionthat you have your bachelor's
from Pomona,So you kind of have returned home.
(01:46):
So to speak, to where you began.
So, Professor,
you are a unique position
besides not only educational background,but in terms of personal and family life.
I believe you are a fifth generationCalifornian
and you are married to a lady
(02:07):
from Texas who has very, very deep
Texas roots, who has apparently taught youhow to do the two step.
That's right.
Okay. Well, good.
You're the man.
Essential in order to be marriedto my wife to learn the two step.
Well, we.Clearly have the right Professor Miller.
So old. And again, welcome.
So Texas versus California,
(02:30):
You made a statement in the book.
If you bear with me for one moment,I just want to quote it.
You wrote that the nation
polarized nation continuesbecause a strong case
for both conservative and progressive
pursuits represented by Texas,which represents
(02:51):
the red conservative,
California representsthe blue, the progressive.
And you said both make a credible claim
for a hold onthe political life of this country
because each presents a viable economic,
social and political model, I believe.
(03:13):
What would that as a starting point,
You talk about Texas and Californiabeing sibling rivals.
I'm going to have to explain that.
I'll start with the similaritiesand then we can talk about
some of the differences.
So they the metaphor of siblings
comes to mindbecause these these two states
(03:36):
that we think of as being absolute polaropposites in our political life today,
which they are actually havea lot of similarities.
And I
tease that out in the book.
But the similarities begin with originsthat both of these states
were originally
(03:58):
in the modern period
part of Spain and then later Mexico.
They were both targets of westwardexpansion by Americans
moving west in the 19th century.
They're both colonized essentiallyby Americans in the 1820s forward.
They both joined the union
(04:19):
in very close proximity.
Texas, 1845.
California 1850.
In connection with the conflictwith Mexico
in the Mexican-American Warduring that period.
And they were both high growth statesthroughout their history.
And that's changing in California today,which we can get into later.
(04:41):
But throughout their history, Californiaand Texas have been have been a magnet
for people from across the United Statesand around the world
to grow to, as you mentioned,that the two largest states
in the union,both in terms of population and economy.
Other similarities are both border states.
So they have strong connectionstill with Mexico and Hispanic influence.
(05:05):
And in both states there.
So they're both borderstates and Sunbelt Southwestern states.
They they both have very diversepopulation.
They're one of a handfulor two of a handful of states
in the United States where whitesare not in the majority in these states.
They both have identical percentageof Hispanic population.
(05:27):
As of the most recent census estimates,40.2% of the population of Texas
is Hispanic, 40.2% of the populationof California is Hispanic.
And so they're they're very ethnically,racially,
culturally diverse places.
And then I think maybe most surprisinglyto a lot of people,
(05:49):
these two states have had a historyof overlapping politics.
So the statisticI like to share with folks
is that between 1928 and 1988,
there were 16 presidential elections.
Between 28 and 88, California and Texasvoted for the same candidate
(06:11):
in 13 out of those 16 elections, 17 timesfor the Republican
presidential candidate, six timesfor the Democratic presidential candidate.
So during much of the 20th century,these two states were overlapping
politically.
And if you dig deeper, Californiawas a Republican state
and Texas was the Democratic stateright back at a time when the southern
(06:35):
part of this country was Democratic,although albeit conservative, Democratic.
And there was a Republican Partyin this country
that was sort of moderate, progressive,and that was where California represented
a sort of a moderate Republicanism.
And so it's a very interesting
(06:55):
relationship between these two states
that goes very deep in termsof the connection and the overlap.
And it's really only beenwithin the last generation
that these two stateshave polarized in the way that they have.
Roughly a generation being about 25 years,20. Five years or so.
So I would say from the 19 it begansort of in the 1990s forward that Texas
(07:17):
moved decisively to realignfrom the Democratic Party
into the Republican Party,as did much of the southern region
of the United Statesand California moved decisively from
sort of a being a competitivetwo party state throughout up
until the mid 1980sinto being in this century
(07:37):
an overwhelminglyDemocratic state, as did,
interestingly, quitea few other states in the United States
and the West Coast Oregon, Washington, New
England, Illinois, probably the closest
analog to California politicallyis the state of Illinois, actually.
(07:57):
So we've seen a bunch of statessort of separate out into these two camps,
the red camp,the blue Camp, and California and Texas
are representatives of that sortingpolitically nationally.
And so they have become rivalsor siblings,
but now they are absolutely rivals forcompeting for the future of this country.
(08:20):
Which of these two models,as you say, is going to be dominant?
And so I guess to the other point,both of these models
have, you know, reasons behind them
and both tap into different elementsof the American political tradition.
There is a strong sort of conservative
(08:41):
traditionalistelement in our political culture.
And there's also sort of an elementthat's driven for political reform
and change, which representsthe sort of progressive element.
And these two states representthose those two
ways of thinking.
So so the obvious question, Professor, iswhat the hell happened?
(09:06):
So so you have states that seem
to be in lockstep in so many ways.
And over the last 25 years, one has gone
red and the other's blue.
I guess the maybe the first question
I should ask is how much timedo we have today to answer that question?
But a good summary would would be what?
(09:31):
You know.
So I spent the first half of the book,
I think six or seven chapterstrying to explain
how California became blueand how Texas became red.
And I pointto a number of different factors,
and they're all sort of relatedto the overall realignment
(09:52):
and polarization of the United Statesas our politics have evolved over time. So
some of the things I point to is origins.
So even though, as I've
said, California and Texas had a lot of
commonalities in their origins,there was one critical difference,
which was California alignedwith the North in the sectional crisis
(10:15):
and the Civil War and Reconstructionand Texas aligned with the South.
And so that had long term implications
for their political development.
History has a long memory,does what it does.
Yeah.
And so the North, if youif you think about where is our political
divide in the nation just sort of in broadrough terms, the conservative
(10:38):
element of art in the most conservativeregion of the country
is the South, and it has always beenmore politically conservative.
It has a political
underlying conservative political culturethat for much of its history,
most of its history was alignedas a faction within the Democratic Party.
And there's historical reasons for that.
(10:58):
California aligned with the North,which was historically Republican.
All of
Abraham Lincoln's electoral votesin 1860 came from the North.
He got none from the South. Right?
And so the Republican Partywas a regional party born in the north.
And that was true for almost a centurythereafter.
There were there was no Republican Partyto speak of in the South.
(11:20):
Right.
But as issues
developed over time, as are developmentswithin the Democratic Party
to sort of embrace a new set of issues,whether it's civil rights
or a more sort of
progressive viewon a lot of social issues,
on foreign affairs, defense,military issues,
(11:44):
it became more of a pacifist partywhere the Republican Party
was more internationalistand strong for a strong military.
The South increasingly felt like it didn'tfit in the Democratic Party anymore.
And so there was this sort of
shift.
It was it was very difficultpsychologically, really, for the South
to to embrace the Republican Party,which had always been the party.
(12:06):
Party of Lincoln.
The party of Lincoln,
the party of Reconstructionand Northern Aggression and all of that.
But it took a generation, basically,for them to.
Just a footnote.
I can tell you're a fan of Mr.
Lincolnbecause you have a number of quotes
from the House Divided speechand also from the first inaugural.
(12:27):
Lively. Maybe we'll get to those. Yeah,absolutely it is.
I hear it is somewhat of an ironythat this program is called
the four score and seven Project,which is another Lincoln reference.
Absolutely.
So, yeah, you could get me talking aboutAbraham Lincoln.
I'd be happy to do that. So,
yeah, so
the South is moving for rational reasonsout of the Democratic Party
(12:51):
because it hasn't been a great fitfrom the mid 20th century forward.
And California,which was part of the Republican Party
as the Republican Party became
more conservative and oriented towardthe South, it was feeling sort of
not it wasn't a good fit for Californiaeasily to be in the Republican Party
(13:13):
because it was naturally more sort ofat least moderate and somewhat progressive
than what the Republican Partywas increasingly becoming.
Well, also, as you mentioned
in the book, also, obviously,Donald Trump is has a huge presence
in national politicsand the Republican Party.
(13:34):
But you made the point
that Donald Trump,unlike many other portions of the country,
doesn't have a lot of tractionin California.
In fact,it may be the reverse in California.
Could you explain why?
Yes, I would say it's partly partly
demographic, partly economic, partly.
(13:56):
And I think probably most importantly,the political culture of the state,
which is the Republicans that were popularin California
were Republicans that appealedto the growing middle class suburbia,
largely educated,professional Californians, and not so much
sort of the core base of
(14:19):
the Trump coalition,which is working class,
non-college educated, mostly white,but not exclusively white folks.
And so that population, whichwas never sort of dominant in California
anyway, to the extentthat they have been here, are that's
that's the people who tendto be moving out of state to other places.
(14:40):
The crowded outworking class, middle class
white population has
has diminished in Californiaas a percentage of the whole Well.
The group they identifiedas the core of the Trump supporters
sounds like to methat's almost the old Democrat.
That's right.
The coalition.That's right. So working class,
(15:02):
blue collar, white
working class people
historically have been alignedwith the Democratic Party
because the division betweenthe parties tended to be over economics.
And so the Democratic Partypromised sort of
more programs, more economic support.
It was the Workingmen's party.
(15:23):
And increasingly, that's not the divisionbetween our political parties today.
More it's it tends to be more aroundsocial and cultural issues.
And the white working classjust doesn't align
with the modern Democratic Partyon a lot of these issues.
Well, if I can quote Bob Dylanand I get sued for any type of copyright
infringement, things have been a changing,obviously, in a very major way.
(15:47):
And, you know, we throw out red and blue
casually and
most of us identified strictlyas a political red being Republican,
blue, Democrat.
But but my sense is, is that it's harddeeper than that.
You just brought up the pointthat politics used to be driven primarily
(16:07):
by economics, but now it's drivenby a lot of other issues.
So when we talk about red versus blue,
it's much deeper to me
than politics or much broaderthan just political affiliation.
Is that a fair observation?
I think that's right.
I think
the red team, if you want tothink about it, that is not just
(16:30):
concerned about politics or concernedabout the direction of the country.
And the same thingcould be said about the blue team.
They have increasingly divergent
and opposite visions
for what the country can or should become.
And progressives have athey have a critique
(16:53):
of a lot of the inequalities and
injustices of what they see
as being part of the American legacyand tradition.
And so their vision is to to changeAmerica
in a way that would more closely alignedwith their progressive values.
(17:13):
And at the same time, conservatives
have a deeper
attachment to the America of the pastand of the traditions.
And so they're very concerned about
underminingor changing the traditional understanding
of what the cultureand the purpose of this country is.
And so it goes beyond just elections.
(17:35):
And elections are seen,I think, in an almost existential way,
because it's feared by both sidesthat if the other side gains control
of power in Washington, D.C.,and in the states, then
it's going to change the countryin a way that threatens their vision of
of the good.
Well, no, no, no.
Another terms always are mentioned,
(17:58):
but they get to the pointwhere we kind of lose
the feel for what the definition is,which is conservative versus progressive.
And and,
you know, I was in
Boston a few years ago of a sonwho went to Boston College.
So we wereI believe it was outside the city hall.
And there is a statue out there
(18:21):
with an inscription.
And I think the statueand I'm going to get this wrong
because I'm vaguely recalling it,but what I recall is that
it was a conservative that was standinghands out against the weight of humanity.
And the line was conservatives standingagainst progress or something like that.
(18:41):
I kind of asked that as a preface.
Are conservativesalways just, No, I don't want to change,
let's keep it the way it is?
Or are they are they different, broader?
Well, I mean, it dependson the conservative and on the issue.
I mean, if
I think
there is a trait within conservatismto want to conserve,
which means to to resist changethat they think is a change for the worse.
(19:06):
I mean, it's partlya view of change, right?
They progressives almost want changefor its own sake, believing that
the existing order is fundamentally flawedand needs to be reformed and changed.
And as I say, conservativeshave a deeper appreciation
for the existing orderand want to conserve more of it.
(19:26):
That being said, conservatives,if you take an example like Ronald Reagan,
was very much a changeagent in American history,
that he believedthat the country had adopted some policies
that during the New Dealand the Great Society and thereafter
that needed to be undoneor were reversed or curbed.
(19:49):
And so he was,you know, advocating a different way.
And so it's not just
always saying no, it's
sometimes saying yes to aa vision that more closely aligns
with one's view of what America should be.
Well, I suppose there's no perfect answer.
(20:10):
You know, it kind of reminds me of
the month of January.
Now, where I'm going tothis is January is named
after the Roman God Janus,
which was a God that was a double headed
God, looking forwardand looking to the back,
(20:32):
which I think was the beginningof the year on the Roman calendar.
And they were trying to indicatethat the best of both worlds would be
people and politics
and societythat could both have an eye on the hell
up ahead, as well as high on the hillthat they just came over.
(20:53):
But I'm not sure that
the way we deal with progressivesand conservatives today that either group
would fall within the categoryof a Janice category that fair?
No, I don't think it's okay.
I don't think that we have
people really engaged in serious
political philosophy
(21:13):
or reasoned
view of the directionthe country should go.
Increasingly, what we've gotis a situation where there's what we call
negative polarization, where both sidesinstinctively,
reactively, will take a positionthat's opposite of the other party,
even if if they stood backand really thought
(21:37):
for a moment about,
you know, what the policyactually entails, they might actually, in
principlebe okay with some elements of that policy.
If it's proposed by the other side, thenthere's this kind of like this negative
immediate reaction to that.
So that's that's the natureof our politics, unfortunately, is it's
(21:58):
increasingly reactiveand polarized in that way.
Sounds increasingly emotionalas opposed to logical, too.
Yeah,it's emotional. Visceral, I would say.
And it has
almost a quasi religious component to it.
I would say for both sides that there'sa totalizing aspect of one's approach
(22:22):
to politics where one believes that the
the political camp or party
has, you know,when it's more closely aligned
with that because of thisthis kind of close connection.
I mean, when one hearsthese kind of jokes about how
in the past
(22:43):
parents might be concernedabout their child marrying
outside of their religionor outside of their race or whatever,
and now increasingly, parentsare more concerned about their children
marrying outside of their political partyor identity.
Right.
And and so that's whyI think I mean, it really has become this
visceral connection that peoplehave to politics in our country.
(23:06):
Well, looking at ayou know, even a broader sweep,
it's almost like where the reverse
of where our founders were famously
the period of the Enlightenmentand which was you saw
what was kind of an outgrowth,it seems to me, of Descartes
and the scientific method,at least on the political social scene, as
(23:28):
is that you propose the hypothesisand the test
that if it's wrong,you try, that you revise the hypothesis.
I think as I understoodwhat you just described,
that's not where we are anymore,because you may propose
that hypothesis and the other sideis is going to instinctively reject it
without testing them.
(23:48):
Are we dumbing down as a society?
I don't know if that's a fairquestion or not, but that's the first.
Phrase jumps. To my mind. Yeah.
Because if you don't take an analyticalask the hard question
whether you like the answer or not,
and you just
instinctivelywant to keep your eye on the road
to the head with blinderson, not looking to the left or the right.
(24:11):
It seems to me thatthat's not the best course to pursuing.
I think it's is fair to say that ourour political leadership
and our political culture in the countrytoday is not the best it's ever been.
One of the things that I and my colleagues
like to do in our classes inClaremont is to assign
the Federalist Papers,and it's a very high level
(24:35):
explanation of our system of government,
of the theory underlying the Constitution.
There's actually a very high level debatebetween the Federalists
and the Anti-Federalists over
whether this was the direction to go orwhether it was faithful to the revolution.
Was it whether it was constructinga government that would preserve liberty
and and advancethe interests of the country?
(24:58):
And, you know, this is famouslybeen given a little bit more
notoriety through the musical.
HAMILTON Or there's a referenceto the Federalist Papers,
which, by.
The way,my wife and I just saw that in London.
of of all places. Fantastic.
First time we saw it and
we were forewarned.
(25:21):
Let me know how
the British crowd in London receivesthe betrayal and portrayal of King.
George IV.
And the portrayal of King Georgethe third, which is basically a Benny
Hill.
The old British comedian, was very wellreceived, warmly received by the folks
in the audience.
So that's good to hear.
(25:42):
A good, good humor about it, right?
Good humor.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, just to say Hamilton,Madison Adams,
you go to Franklin Jefferson, you gothrough the list of these these founders.
It's remarkable, the high quality of theirintellects, their their love of country,
their their vision for the future.
(26:03):
And at the same time,if you look at the election of 1800
and what transpired around there,there was partizanship.
They had deep division and debate.
So it's not just thatthere was no parties, no
partizanshipin that generation. There was.
But all of them, I think, elevate did
the quality of political discourse
(26:26):
to a level that we're not seeing todayby either party.
I would say. Right.
Well, I just can't resistasking the question, is there a
this probably is a graduatelevel course to research this.
But what why?
Why what's happening to us?
You know,we're a lot of people go to college.
(26:47):
A lot of people get graduate degrees.
A lot of people are well read.
But it seems like we wewe at least as a whole, politically,
we're nowhere near on parwith that early generation.
You know,it's it's a sad commentary on the culture.
I do think that theincentives don't really poll
(27:11):
some ofthe best people into political life,
and especially at the highest levels.
It's very the sacrifices,the personal sacrifices
to go into those high levels of politics.
And I think it drawsmaybe a personality type.
That's right.
That is is drawn to sort of,
(27:34):
you know, the kind of political culturethat we have today
and maybe notthe more philosophical intellectual types
that have flourished in American politicsin earlier generations.
Interesting.
You know, there isI suppose at a certain level,
we get the political leadersthat we deserve.
But I guess underlying what you just said
(27:55):
is that we've made holdingpolitical office
undesirable for many people.
Maybe that because it's financial,you have to raise so much money
to campaign or because of all the vitriol
that they have to sustainas candidates and elected officers.
I mean, you think about the branchof our government
(28:19):
that's supposed to be farthestremoved from politics.
It's the judiciary and the Supreme Court.
And you think about what the confirmationbattles are like for a lot of the people
who are nominated. That court,I mean. Who wants to be nominated?
I mean, yeah, the personal exposure ofnot just yourself,
but your familyto the very partizan attacks.
And it's so that's sort of an exampleof how the coarsening of politics,
(28:43):
I think, makes it difficultfor a lot of very good people
to want to say,I'm ready to sign up for that.
So of course, Americans were all famously
centered on North American, U.S.
culture, society, politics,
and we very rarely ventureoutside our own borders
(29:04):
to get a comparison to what's going onin the rest of the world. But
what is what we're talking aboutoccurring elsewhere
in Europe and other places where there'srepresentative democracy, you.
Know, So I can't claim to be an expert
in terms of the politicsof other countries.
I'm not a comparative this,but just as a consumer of of news,
(29:25):
it is clear that there has beena coarsening of politics,
at least throughout the West,
the rise of populist movementsand and such.
And so it's it's not just a usonly phenomenon, I would say,
but I would venture to guessthat the United States
is leading the league in in course,politics.
(29:50):
Not necessarily a category.
We want to be number one,but we have the distinction.
So I was always taught you know,follow the money, follow the money,
and meaning thatif you want to get the explanation
for motivations of just,you know, you know, follow the money and
when it comes to politics,
my first instinct is why is one place red,another place blue?
(30:14):
And I tell myself in my inner
voice, we'll follow the money, you know,what's the economy doing, Who's employed,
you know, and what whattraits and attributes that particular
economy bring with it.
And but, you know, as I say thatI'm not so sure that explains everything,
(30:35):
because I get a sensethere's a deeper ideology at play
that in some ways may be resistantto the follow the money
explanation.
Yes, follow the money is part of it.
But it's almost
you know, you could tell the folksin the Soviet Union,
you know, for decadesthat they're not doing well economically
(30:57):
compared to a capitalist economy.
But until the sky was about ready to fall,no one was ready to
to change how they approached
their their economy, the planned economy.
So here it did.
You have a sense on it when we talk aboutthe red blue divide, is it
just economies that are doing thisor is a lot more that's going on?
(31:17):
Well, I would say ultimately is probably
the political culture, the ideologythat's the dominant factor.
But I do think that economics
plays a role in
understanding our red blue divide.
So if youif you just compare California and Texas,
(31:38):
Texas thrives on a couple of things.
One is exploiting natural resources.
It's the biggest energyproducing state in the country.
And it's it's oil and gas.
As everybody knows,there's a fracking was invented in Texas
and it led to this enormous explosion
in the productivity of oiland natural gas in the United States.
(32:03):
The refineries are in Texas.
That is a central part of thethe Texas economy.
That's one thing.The other thing is low cost.
What Texas can offer businesses
that are looking for cutting costs
is that if you bring your businessto Texas,
will have lower taxes,lighter regulations, lower labor
(32:26):
costs, you can be more profitablein this environment.
And Texas make that promise.
But does Texas. Deliver?
Absolutely.It does deliver on that promise.
The the tax structure,the regulatory structure, the labor costs,
the cost of land, all of that is cheaperin in Texas than in blue states.
And so that's why you see a Charles Schwabor a Toyota USA
(32:50):
or a lot of these companiesthat have moved picked up from California
to other places to Texasand other red states.
That's why it's not becausethe weather's better in Texas.
It's not because
the cultural amenities are better
and it's because it's it's cheaper,it's more cost effective.
And so if you if you look at Texas, thethe economic foundation
(33:12):
underpinning of that state is resources
now being willing to and encouraging
the continued use of fossil fuelsas well as a broader sort of energy
economyand then the low cost of doing business.
Those align with conservativeRepublican policies and right.
(33:34):
On the other hand,California has aligned its economy
in a way that is more sort of suitedfor a progressive
political structure.
So what I mean by that California,a half century
and more agowas a big manufacturing economy.
There were auto plantsand and defense plants
(33:54):
and all of that throughout the state.
Auto manufacturing gone
for the most partin California, other heavy manufacturing
gone, the aerospace industry largely gone.
And so what's replaced it was replaced.
It has is largely trade.
And so logistics around the Port of LosAngeles and Long Beach, but also
(34:18):
more importantly, the tech industry
and Silicon Valley, which is the driver,
the absolute driver of California's
GDP. It's economic prosperity,it's revenues to the state
and and that sector,
the tech sector, is more alignedwith the Democratic Party
(34:38):
and progressive policiesand say the oil industry is right.
And so there's a closer fiteconomically between the California model,
economicallyand politically on the progressive side
and the Texas model politicallyand economically.
On the red side.
What was the California manufacturing base
driven out of the stateby California regulations and laws.
(35:03):
And partly that.
So just to take oneexample is labor costs.
Okay.
So the nation is pretty evenly dividedbetween states
that have pro-union,
pro organized labor,
state level laws, so that mandate,
(35:24):
you know,unionization and such, and states
that are called right to work statesor open shop states and.
Meaning you don't have to.
Be you don't have to bea member of a union in order to to work.
And the law prohibits
various forms of labor practices
that would force peopleinto those situations.
(35:44):
Similarly, on the public sectorside, California and other blue states
absolutely encourage public sectorunionization, red states don't.
And there's a very close tight connectionbetween
blue states and unionization,red states and nonunion zation.
And so that's that's one way in which
the economic system lines up closelywith the political system
(36:08):
in states throughout the country.
I do want to come back to the public
employee union issue,
a I do understand
it's a major driver into the redor the blue campaign.
It's been controversy as well,and maybe we can touch base
on the come back to that term.
(36:29):
Janice, again. Sure.
And not the Roman pagan god,but the Supreme Court decision which. Was.
Related to publicemployee unions and so forth.
But so so it is to a large
extent economically driven and.
We have a state like Texas, which
(36:51):
has a big oil and gas component.
It's the refineries and a lot of the otherstuff that goes with it, I suppose,
because I assume that with the oil and gas
business, there's a lot of machine toolingthat goes with that business as well.
That's right.
And those related industries,
California, traditionally big,big agricultural state, we forget that.
(37:13):
And it's I think Fresno County
in terms of value of agricultural output,is the biggest producer
by county in the country,probably the world.
And then, of course, Texas is very famous,
at least from the cattle standpoint.
(37:35):
And you're east of a certain line,I suppose, east of the
of the hill country.
You know, you have an agricultural area,but does
does the agricultural economic basein the states play
much of a impact on politicalthinking in either state these days?
Yes, I would say thethe agricultural sector
(37:57):
in Californiahas been a largely conservative sector.
And it was part of basically the the
Republican
coalitionfor a big part of the 20th century.
There were there were a lot of fights over
agricultural laborrelations in the 20th century.
(38:18):
So Cesar Chavez and the United FarmWorkers up against the major growers
are part of part of the agriculturesort of
ecosystem in California,is that we have very large scale
agricultureas a part as opposed to small family farm.
And it's highly productive.
It contributes a lot to the state economy,
(38:39):
but there aren't as many farmers as,
you know, potential constituents.
Voters voting bloc in Californiaas you might
guess, based on the agriculturalproductivity of the state.
One of the thing I would mentionjust in terms of
what a California industry
(39:00):
that we don't think much aboutis actually the oil industry.
California, at the beginning of the 20thcentury, was the world's
largest oil producer before before Texas
gained that title, and then laterSaudi Arabia.
And but I mean,if you you live in Southern California,
you can see pumpjacks still in places
(39:23):
like Berea and Orange County and,
you know, in Long Beach, there were a lot.
But the biggest oil producing regionis up in Kern County around Bakersfield.
And and such,and that's still producing oil.
But that the policies of the stateof California do not encourage
(39:44):
the continued developmentthat sector as opposed to Texas,
where the state government absolutelydoes encourage the oil industry.
Well, you know, ityou know, it seems to me that Texas
has been very successfulin terms of diversifying its energy.
And my primary basisfor speaking on that subject
(40:07):
is the winter, winter or so ago,when Texas
had an abnormally cold spelland all the wind turbines shut down.
And and I think that I and probablya lot of other people like that
were shocked because I assumethat all of the electrical get
and grid in Texas was generatedthrough some type of fossil fuel.
(40:32):
But it turns out that's just not the case.
And so
has there been a public policy in Texas
that is to diversify into renewable
sources of energy? Yeah, absolutely.
The Texaseconomy used to be much more heavily
(40:52):
dependent on oil and gas and
in general, the economy is diversified.
But in the energy sector. Absolutely.
Going back towhen George W Bush was governor of Texas,
he encouraged the development of
alternative energy.
(41:13):
And it's really been a little bitthrough public policy,
but it's really been more through marketincentives that Texas happens
to have a lot of sunshineand a lot of wind, especially west Texas.
And it's economically profitable
to build wind turbines and solar powerand install solar panels
(41:35):
and generate electricity at a ratethat can be
economically profitable.
So it hasn't been through mandates
by state government as much as it's beenthrough the private sector,
seeing an economic opportunityand moving into it.
And it's been remarkable.
Texas with. This,the old traditional capitalists.
The capitalists,you know, profit is the profit motive.
Driving is a situation where Texas is nowthe largest wind producer
(42:00):
by a large marginof any state in the union.
And it's above California.
Above California by far.
Right.And it's moving up and solar as well.
There's candidly some pushback in
among some conservatives in Texas that are
trying to say, well,
(42:20):
maybe we shouldn'tbe as invested in alternative energy
because partly because we might end upwith these situations
like with the big freezea couple of years ago,
but more generally wanting to protectthe oil and gas industry, I think.
But I think most of the business interestin Texas
embraces the idea of being all energy
producing, you know, both
(42:41):
in the fossil fuel and also inthe alternative renewable energy sectors.
So it would it be a true statementthen that
the electrical grid in Texas
has a higher percentage attributableto renewables than California does? Yes.
Yes. Well, in terms of percentage,because they produce high at all levels,
we actually don'twe don't produce enough electricity to
(43:06):
supply our needs in the state.
We have to import electricityfrom out of state into California,
whereas Texas is a net exporter.
Right.
And so they producea lot of electricity and energy generally.
And in absolute terms, Texas producesmore renewable energy.
In terms of percentages,I'm not quite sure where it would fit.
(43:28):
How did California get in the positionwhere
we have to buy our electricityfrom other states?
Well, there's a demand
which is peoplewant the lights to turn on, right?
And they wind need electricity.
And we have chosen
not to produce in various different ways.
(43:50):
So what are the various waysthat electricity is produced in the state
historically through fossil fuels?
And that's increasingly
the state has wanted to shut downthose sources of electricity.
The second source is hydro electric.
And we do have large dams that producesome some electricity,
but there's been no constructionof new dams in the state.
(44:12):
A third and huge sourcehas been nuclear reactors.
And we used to have three large ones.
We're down to oneand that's slated to be shut down.
And for a generation or more we've builtnew no new nuclear reactors.
And so what are we?
So we're relying on a diminishingnumber of power sources
and we have a large populationthat needs electricity.
(44:35):
So that's why we have to import.
Well, it does strike me as odd
that we have the political philosophythat in California
that restricts the use of fossil fuelsto produce electricity
and also nuclear visionto produce electricity.
But as a result, we're havingto go outside the state to buy it,
(44:58):
which means that some other state
is probably through fossil fuelsor nuclear or fission.
But to the California consumer,
I suspect that probably meansthat the California consumers
are paying a higher pricefor that electricity, and.
We pay way more for electricitythan most other places.
And it's supply and demand. Right.
(45:18):
If we were generating better supply,if we had
more nuclear plants or whatever source,
then that could bring electric rates,electricity rates down.
But we don't we'reI mean, the philosophy of
state policymakers is that we need to moveto all renewable and they don't count
(45:40):
nuclearas being a renewable energy source.
And so the policy is towardmore wind and solar,
which are the two primary sourcesand that it's great as far as it goes.
I mean, I put solar panels on my homeand I'm happy with that.
Right. And a lot of people are doing that.
It's becoming a larger percentage,but it's it's not sufficient, actually,
(46:03):
especially if we're movingto a total electrification
of our entire economy so that all vehiclesin the near future need to be
electricity driven as opposed to by force,where we need a source for that.
And we just don't have sufficientproduction of electricity
either now or in the foreseeablefuture to meet that demand.
And so we are having to go
(46:24):
to other sources out of state,and that's not economically efficient or
even environmentally efficient,because, as you say,
a lot of that out-of-stateelectricity is produced by
renewable sources.
Well, bear with me for a moment,
because I'm intrigued,maybe troubled by this,
(46:46):
because here we have Texas
a large part of the economy is driven
by the gas and oil sector,but yet they produce
far more electricity from renewablerenewables than California does.
And California, through its politics,
wants to produce electricitythrough a new renewables,
but it's a fraction of what is producedby renewables in Texas.
(47:10):
And that's strikesme as being mismanagement politically.
Yeah, well,
there's complication because people
in principle like renewables,they like wind energy. But
a lot of people don't want
windmills off the coast of Santa monica
or Malibu or, you know,the California coast is beautiful.
(47:32):
Right.
And and Texas doesn't have that concernedWest Texas wide open spaces.
Not a lot of people out there.
So it's easy to put up a lot of very largeturbines that can generate wind energy.
And there's not a lot of pushbackon that in California,
no matterthe energy source, there's going to be
(47:52):
some pushback in
terms of the estheticsor the environmental impact
of solar panels or wind turbines or
or nuclear reactors or whatever.
Right.
So it's a it's a difficult thingto achieve
in California's meeting the energy needs
and also meeting this other desirable.
(48:14):
It seems to me that there's
competing ideologies in Californiathat are butting heads.
We need the electricity,
and as long as we can sourceit outside the state, we get by with it.
Even though the people at the lowerend of the economic scale
are the ones who pay the penalty becausethey have to pay more for electricity,
although that's another issuethat's coming up before the PUC, which.
(48:35):
Yeah, so I mean this is the conflictis that
for on a lot of these policies
the progressive ideologywhich promotes things like
environmentalism or,
you know, labor rights or things
like thathave one can be on board for that.
(48:56):
But if you think about cumulatively whatthe economic impact is, it often times
can just raise the cost overall of goodsand services.
In California, it makes it prohibitive,really expensive for working class people
and poor people to live in the statewithout subsidies from the government.
And so you get into this kind of cycle
(49:16):
where it's too expensive to live hereunless the government
subsidizes you.
And the more government subsidiesthere are,
the more expensive government is,and it needs further revenues.
And it's it's it's a different modelthan sort of the low cost model
that Texas or other states pursue.
Well, the reference
I had to the PUC, the Public UtilitiesCommission in California,
(49:40):
I think the state legislaturea couple of years ago charged the PUC
with creating a charging mechanismthat isn't based upon consumption only,
but includes an extra taxbased upon income or wealth.
I'm not sure whether it's a combinationof the Commonwealth. Yeah.
Or both or one or the other. Yeah.
(50:00):
So it's essentially a socializationof electricity bills
so that everybody would paysort of an opening rate
for electricitythat would be based on their
I can't rememberwhether it's income or wealth.
And then there'd be a sort of a rate feeon top of that,
(50:20):
but poor people would startin a much lower base rate and wealthier
people with a higher base rate.
So if, you know, if I had a
if someone has a typical family, well, notthere are no typical families.
And we're let's say it's a familyof four living in a 2000 square foot home
electricity usage.
(50:40):
Let's just pick up that homeand transport it
from Los Angeles to,
let's say, Dallas Fort Worth.
How much less
would family expectto pay percentagewise for electrical use?
Yeah, I don't know the current figures,but I wouldn't be surprised if it's half
(51:00):
the utility bill in in Texasthat it would be in in California.
No, not. Shocking, actually.
That's a Yeah, well, you know,we all may be saved Fusion
and I love to hear every year
there's an update about some remarkablenew advance in fusion.
(51:21):
And I think the old line isthat we're only 15 years away from having
a commercially viable fusion reactionand we'll always be 15 years away.
That's right.
I mean, but
and, you know,
I guess then, of course, with fusion,you know, you know, would it have any
political headwinds?
Because most of us think of fusionin the same terms as vision, vision
(51:45):
as a heavy element, fusionas a light element,
but yet you don't have meltdownswith fusion,
You don't have that same levelof radioactivity.
So raises the question, wouldthere be any environmental opposition to
if we do develop a fusion reactors,you know, where would
the political opposition or environmentalor public health safety go?
(52:08):
Yeah, I'm not an expert on fusion,but as I understand, it doesn't have
the negative externalities of of visionthat both the danger of a meltdown,
which I think is relatively remote,but also the real problem
of disposal of spent nuclear energy.
Just becomes helium, doesn't it?
That's right.
So that it's you know,it is sort of the magic energy
(52:30):
and unfortunately,it's always 15 years away.
Right.
So is helium that gaswhen you when you suck it
in, that makes you sound like Donald Duck.That's right. That's right.
So we'd all just be walking aroundsounding like Mickey Mouse.
Right?
Right. That would be the fusion melt down.
So yeah.
In or.
Yeah.So I mean, that would be the exception.
I mean I think every other energy source,I mean,
(52:53):
unless I'm missing something, but
every other energy source has
its sort of negative
aspects to it in terms of either of
well for example
one of the problems with wind and solar,as you know, is that it's inconstant
and that wind doesn't always blowwhen the sun doesn't shine.
(53:15):
And so you have these fluctuations andwhat's really needed is storage batteries.
Right.And that hasn't been fully developed.
And so
and as I say, there's some environmental
impactseven to the collection and production
and distribution with power linesand such of of renewable energy.
My name is Roger Clark, and I'm your host.
Today on this episode of the Fourscoreand Seven Project.
We're focusing our discussion today
on Texas versus California.
Think of it this way.
If this was a professional boxingmatch, we'd have in this corner
(00:41):
in the Blue Trunks, California,with weighing in at 40 million people
with a reach of the fifth largest economyin the world.
In this corner here in the red trunks,we have Texas
weighing in at 30 million people
with a reach of the ninthlargest economy in the world.
We're very fortunate to have the gentleman
(01:04):
who literally wrote the book
called Texas versus California,
Professor Ken Miller, the Rose professor
at the Rose Instituteat Claremont McKenna.
Welcome.We're very happy to have you here.
Thank you,Roger. It's a pleasure to be here.
You have a J.D.
(01:25):
and doctorateof jurisprudence from Harvard, I believe.
And you have a Ph.D. in
political science,I believe from Berkeley.
That's right. Berkeley.
And then we should also mentionthat you have your bachelor's
from Pomona,So you kind of have returned home.
(01:46):
So to speak, to where you began.
So, Professor,
you are a unique position
besides not only educational background,but in terms of personal and family life.
I believe you are a fifth generationCalifornian
and you are married to a lady
(02:07):
from Texas who has very, very deep
Texas roots, who has apparently taught youhow to do the two step.
That's right.
Okay. Well, good.
You're the man.
Essential in order to be marriedto my wife to learn the two step.
Well, we.Clearly have the right Professor Miller.
So old. And again, welcome.
So Texas versus California,
(02:30):
You made a statement in the book.
If you bear with me for one moment,I just want to quote it.
You wrote that the nation
polarized nation continuesbecause a strong case
for both conservative and progressive
pursuits represented by Texas,which represents
(02:51):
the red conservative,
California representsthe blue, the progressive.
And you said both make a credible claim
for a hold onthe political life of this country
because each presents a viable economic,
social and political model, I believe.
(03:13):
What would that as a starting point,
You talk about Texas and Californiabeing sibling rivals.
I'm going to have to explain that.
I'll start with the similaritiesand then we can talk about
some of the differences.
So they the metaphor of siblings
comes to mindbecause these these two states
(03:36):
that we think of as being absolute polaropposites in our political life today,
which they are actually havea lot of similarities.
And I
tease that out in the book.
But the similarities begin with originsthat both of these states
were originally
(03:58):
in the modern period
part of Spain and then later Mexico.
They were both targets of westwardexpansion by Americans
moving west in the 19th century.
They're both colonized essentiallyby Americans in the 1820s forward.
They both joined the union
(04:19):
in very close proximity.
Texas, 1845.
California 1850.
In connection with the conflictwith Mexico
in the Mexican-American Warduring that period.
And they were both high growth statesthroughout their history.
And that's changing in California today,which we can get into later.
(04:41):
But throughout their history, Californiaand Texas have been have been a magnet
for people from across the United Statesand around the world
to grow to, as you mentioned,that the two largest states
in the union,both in terms of population and economy.
Other similarities are both border states.
So they have strong connectionstill with Mexico and Hispanic influence.
(05:05):
And in both states there.
So they're both borderstates and Sunbelt Southwestern states.
They they both have very diversepopulation.
They're one of a handfulor two of a handful of states
in the United States where whitesare not in the majority in these states.
They both have identical percentageof Hispanic population.
(05:27):
As of the most recent census estimates,40.2% of the population of Texas
is Hispanic, 40.2% of the populationof California is Hispanic.
And so they're they're very ethnically,racially,
culturally diverse places.
And then I think maybe most surprisinglyto a lot of people,
(05:49):
these two states have had a historyof overlapping politics.
So the statisticI like to share with folks
is that between 1928 and 1988,
there were 16 presidential elections.
Between 28 and 88, California and Texasvoted for the same candidate
(06:11):
in 13 out of those 16 elections, 17 timesfor the Republican
presidential candidate, six timesfor the Democratic presidential candidate.
So during much of the 20th century,these two states were overlapping
politically.
And if you dig deeper, Californiawas a Republican state
and Texas was the Democratic stateright back at a time when the southern
(06:35):
part of this country was Democratic,although albeit conservative, Democratic.
And there was a Republican Partyin this country
that was sort of moderate, progressive,and that was where California represented
a sort of a moderate Republicanism.
And so it's a very interesting
(06:55):
relationship between these two states
that goes very deep in termsof the connection and the overlap.
And it's really only beenwithin the last generation
that these two stateshave polarized in the way that they have.
Roughly a generation being about 25 years,20. Five years or so.
So I would say from the 19 it begansort of in the 1990s forward that Texas
(07:17):
moved decisively to realignfrom the Democratic Party
into the Republican Party,as did much of the southern region
of the United Statesand California moved decisively from
sort of a being a competitivetwo party state throughout up
until the mid 1980sinto being in this century
(07:37):
an overwhelminglyDemocratic state, as did,
interestingly, quitea few other states in the United States
and the West Coast Oregon, Washington, New
England, Illinois, probably the closest
analog to California politicallyis the state of Illinois, actually.
(07:57):
So we've seen a bunch of statessort of separate out into these two camps,
the red camp,the blue Camp, and California and Texas
are representatives of that sortingpolitically nationally.
And so they have become rivalsor siblings,
but now they are absolutely rivals forcompeting for the future of this country.
(08:20):
Which of these two models,as you say, is going to be dominant?
And so I guess to the other point,both of these models
have, you know, reasons behind them
and both tap into different elementsof the American political tradition.
There is a strong sort of conservative
(08:41):
traditionalistelement in our political culture.
And there's also sort of an elementthat's driven for political reform
and change, which representsthe sort of progressive element.
And these two states representthose those two
ways of thinking.
So so the obvious question, Professor, iswhat the hell happened?
(09:06):
So so you have states that seem
to be in lockstep in so many ways.
And over the last 25 years, one has gone
red and the other's blue.
I guess the maybe the first question
I should ask is how much timedo we have today to answer that question?
But a good summary would would be what?
(09:31):
You know.
So I spent the first half of the book,
I think six or seven chapterstrying to explain
how California became blueand how Texas became red.
And I pointto a number of different factors,
and they're all sort of relatedto the overall realignment
(09:52):
and polarization of the United Statesas our politics have evolved over time. So
some of the things I point to is origins.
So even though, as I've
said, California and Texas had a lot of
commonalities in their origins,there was one critical difference,
which was California alignedwith the North in the sectional crisis
(10:15):
and the Civil War and Reconstructionand Texas aligned with the South.
And so that had long term implications
for their political development.
History has a long memory,does what it does.
Yeah.
And so the North, if youif you think about where is our political
divide in the nation just sort of in broadrough terms, the conservative
(10:38):
element of art in the most conservativeregion of the country
is the South, and it has always beenmore politically conservative.
It has a political
underlying conservative political culturethat for much of its history,
most of its history was alignedas a faction within the Democratic Party.
And there's historical reasons for that.
(10:58):
California aligned with the North,which was historically Republican.
All of
Abraham Lincoln's electoral votesin 1860 came from the North.
He got none from the South. Right?
And so the Republican Partywas a regional party born in the north.
And that was true for almost a centurythereafter.
There were there was no Republican Partyto speak of in the South.
(11:20):
Right.
But as issues
developed over time, as are developmentswithin the Democratic Party
to sort of embrace a new set of issues,whether it's civil rights
or a more sort of
progressive viewon a lot of social issues,
on foreign affairs, defense,military issues,
(11:44):
it became more of a pacifist partywhere the Republican Party
was more internationalistand strong for a strong military.
The South increasingly felt like it didn'tfit in the Democratic Party anymore.
And so there was this sort of
shift.
It was it was very difficultpsychologically, really, for the South
to to embrace the Republican Party,which had always been the party.
(12:06):
Party of Lincoln.
The party of Lincoln,
the party of Reconstructionand Northern Aggression and all of that.
But it took a generation, basically,for them to.
Just a footnote.
I can tell you're a fan of Mr.
Lincolnbecause you have a number of quotes
from the House Divided speechand also from the first inaugural.
(12:27):
Lively. Maybe we'll get to those. Yeah,absolutely it is.
I hear it is somewhat of an ironythat this program is called
the four score and seven Project,which is another Lincoln reference.
Absolutely.
So, yeah, you could get me talking aboutAbraham Lincoln.
I'd be happy to do that. So,
yeah, so
the South is moving for rational reasonsout of the Democratic Party
(12:51):
because it hasn't been a great fitfrom the mid 20th century forward.
And California,which was part of the Republican Party
as the Republican Party became
more conservative and oriented towardthe South, it was feeling sort of
not it wasn't a good fit for Californiaeasily to be in the Republican Party
(13:13):
because it was naturally more sort ofat least moderate and somewhat progressive
than what the Republican Partywas increasingly becoming.
Well, also, as you mentioned
in the book, also, obviously,Donald Trump is has a huge presence
in national politicsand the Republican Party.
(13:34):
But you made the point
that Donald Trump,unlike many other portions of the country,
doesn't have a lot of tractionin California.
In fact,it may be the reverse in California.
Could you explain why?
Yes, I would say it's partly partly
demographic, partly economic, partly.
(13:56):
And I think probably most importantly,the political culture of the state,
which is the Republicans that were popularin California
were Republicans that appealedto the growing middle class suburbia,
largely educated,professional Californians, and not so much
sort of the core base of
(14:19):
the Trump coalition,which is working class,
non-college educated, mostly white,but not exclusively white folks.
And so that population, whichwas never sort of dominant in California
anyway, to the extentthat they have been here, are that's
that's the people who tendto be moving out of state to other places.
(14:40):
The crowded outworking class, middle class
white population has
has diminished in Californiaas a percentage of the whole Well.
The group they identifiedas the core of the Trump supporters
sounds like to methat's almost the old Democrat.
That's right.
The coalition.That's right. So working class,
(15:02):
blue collar, white
working class people
historically have been alignedwith the Democratic Party
because the division betweenthe parties tended to be over economics.
And so the Democratic Partypromised sort of
more programs, more economic support.
It was the Workingmen's party.
(15:23):
And increasingly, that's not the divisionbetween our political parties today.
More it's it tends to be more aroundsocial and cultural issues.
And the white working classjust doesn't align
with the modern Democratic Partyon a lot of these issues.
Well, if I can quote Bob Dylanand I get sued for any type of copyright
infringement, things have been a changing,obviously, in a very major way.
(15:47):
And, you know, we throw out red and blue
casually and
most of us identified strictlyas a political red being Republican,
blue, Democrat.
But but my sense is, is that it's harddeeper than that.
You just brought up the pointthat politics used to be driven primarily
(16:07):
by economics, but now it's drivenby a lot of other issues.
So when we talk about red versus blue,
it's much deeper to me
than politics or much broaderthan just political affiliation.
Is that a fair observation?
I think that's right.
I think
the red team, if you want tothink about it, that is not just
(16:30):
concerned about politics or concernedabout the direction of the country.
And the same thingcould be said about the blue team.
They have increasingly divergent
and opposite visions
for what the country can or should become.
And progressives have athey have a critique
(16:53):
of a lot of the inequalities and
injustices of what they see
as being part of the American legacyand tradition.
And so their vision is to to changeAmerica
in a way that would more closely alignedwith their progressive values.
(17:13):
And at the same time, conservatives
have a deeper
attachment to the America of the pastand of the traditions.
And so they're very concerned about
underminingor changing the traditional understanding
of what the cultureand the purpose of this country is.
And so it goes beyond just elections.
(17:35):
And elections are seen,I think, in an almost existential way,
because it's feared by both sidesthat if the other side gains control
of power in Washington, D.C.,and in the states, then
it's going to change the countryin a way that threatens their vision of
of the good.
Well, no, no, no.
Another terms always are mentioned,
(17:58):
but they get to the pointwhere we kind of lose
the feel for what the definition is,which is conservative versus progressive.
And and,
you know, I was in
Boston a few years ago of a sonwho went to Boston College.
So we wereI believe it was outside the city hall.
And there is a statue out there
(18:21):
with an inscription.
And I think the statueand I'm going to get this wrong
because I'm vaguely recalling it,but what I recall is that
it was a conservative that was standinghands out against the weight of humanity.
And the line was conservatives standingagainst progress or something like that.
(18:41):
I kind of asked that as a preface.
Are conservativesalways just, No, I don't want to change,
let's keep it the way it is?
Or are they are they different, broader?
Well, I mean, it dependson the conservative and on the issue.
I mean, if
I think
there is a trait within conservatismto want to conserve,
which means to to resist changethat they think is a change for the worse.
(19:06):
I mean, it's partlya view of change, right?
They progressives almost want changefor its own sake, believing that
the existing order is fundamentally flawedand needs to be reformed and changed.
And as I say, conservativeshave a deeper appreciation
for the existing orderand want to conserve more of it.
(19:26):
That being said, conservatives,if you take an example like Ronald Reagan,
was very much a changeagent in American history,
that he believedthat the country had adopted some policies
that during the New Dealand the Great Society and thereafter
that needed to be undoneor were reversed or curbed.
(19:49):
And so he was,you know, advocating a different way.
And so it's not just
always saying no, it's
sometimes saying yes to aa vision that more closely aligns
with one's view of what America should be.
Well, I suppose there's no perfect answer.
(20:10):
You know, it kind of reminds me of
the month of January.
Now, where I'm going tothis is January is named
after the Roman God Janus,
which was a God that was a double headed
God, looking forwardand looking to the back,
(20:32):
which I think was the beginningof the year on the Roman calendar.
And they were trying to indicatethat the best of both worlds would be
people and politics
and societythat could both have an eye on the hell
up ahead, as well as high on the hillthat they just came over.
(20:53):
But I'm not sure that
the way we deal with progressivesand conservatives today that either group
would fall within the categoryof a Janice category that fair?
No, I don't think it's okay.
I don't think that we have
people really engaged in serious
political philosophy
(21:13):
or reasoned
view of the directionthe country should go.
Increasingly, what we've gotis a situation where there's what we call
negative polarization, where both sidesinstinctively,
reactively, will take a positionthat's opposite of the other party,
even if if they stood backand really thought
(21:37):
for a moment about,
you know, what the policyactually entails, they might actually, in
principlebe okay with some elements of that policy.
If it's proposed by the other side, thenthere's this kind of like this negative
immediate reaction to that.
So that's that's the natureof our politics, unfortunately, is it's
(21:58):
increasingly reactiveand polarized in that way.
Sounds increasingly emotionalas opposed to logical, too.
Yeah,it's emotional. Visceral, I would say.
And it has
almost a quasi religious component to it.
I would say for both sides that there'sa totalizing aspect of one's approach
(22:22):
to politics where one believes that the
the political camp or party
has, you know,when it's more closely aligned
with that because of thisthis kind of close connection.
I mean, when one hearsthese kind of jokes about how
in the past
(22:43):
parents might be concernedabout their child marrying
outside of their religionor outside of their race or whatever,
and now increasingly, parentsare more concerned about their children
marrying outside of their political partyor identity.
Right.
And and so that's whyI think I mean, it really has become this
visceral connection that peoplehave to politics in our country.
(23:06):
Well, looking at ayou know, even a broader sweep,
it's almost like where the reverse
of where our founders were famously
the period of the Enlightenmentand which was you saw
what was kind of an outgrowth,it seems to me, of Descartes
and the scientific method,at least on the political social scene, as
(23:28):
is that you propose the hypothesisand the test
that if it's wrong,you try, that you revise the hypothesis.
I think as I understoodwhat you just described,
that's not where we are anymore,because you may propose
that hypothesis and the other sideis is going to instinctively reject it
without testing them.
(23:48):
Are we dumbing down as a society?
I don't know if that's a fairquestion or not, but that's the first.
Phrase jumps. To my mind. Yeah.
Because if you don't take an analyticalask the hard question
whether you like the answer or not,
and you just
instinctivelywant to keep your eye on the road
to the head with blinderson, not looking to the left or the right.
(24:11):
It seems to me thatthat's not the best course to pursuing.
I think it's is fair to say that ourour political leadership
and our political culture in the countrytoday is not the best it's ever been.
One of the things that I and my colleagues
like to do in our classes inClaremont is to assign
the Federalist Papers,and it's a very high level
(24:35):
explanation of our system of government,
of the theory underlying the Constitution.
There's actually a very high level debatebetween the Federalists
and the Anti-Federalists over
whether this was the direction to go orwhether it was faithful to the revolution.
Was it whether it was constructinga government that would preserve liberty
and and advancethe interests of the country?
(24:58):
And, you know, this is famouslybeen given a little bit more
notoriety through the musical.
HAMILTON Or there's a referenceto the Federalist Papers,
which, by.
The way,my wife and I just saw that in London.
of of all places. Fantastic.
First time we saw it and
we were forewarned.
(25:21):
Let me know how
the British crowd in London receivesthe betrayal and portrayal of King.
George IV.
And the portrayal of King Georgethe third, which is basically a Benny
Hill.
The old British comedian, was very wellreceived, warmly received by the folks
in the audience.
So that's good to hear.
(25:42):
A good, good humor about it, right?
Good humor.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, just to say Hamilton,Madison Adams,
you go to Franklin Jefferson, you gothrough the list of these these founders.
It's remarkable, the high quality of theirintellects, their their love of country,
their their vision for the future.
(26:03):
And at the same time,if you look at the election of 1800
and what transpired around there,there was partizanship.
They had deep division and debate.
So it's not just thatthere was no parties, no
partizanshipin that generation. There was.
But all of them, I think, elevate did
the quality of political discourse
(26:26):
to a level that we're not seeing todayby either party.
I would say. Right.
Well, I just can't resistasking the question, is there a
this probably is a graduatelevel course to research this.
But what why?
Why what's happening to us?
You know,we're a lot of people go to college.
(26:47):
A lot of people get graduate degrees.
A lot of people are well read.
But it seems like we wewe at least as a whole, politically,
we're nowhere near on parwith that early generation.
You know,it's it's a sad commentary on the culture.
I do think that theincentives don't really poll
(27:11):
some ofthe best people into political life,
and especially at the highest levels.
It's very the sacrifices,the personal sacrifices
to go into those high levels of politics.
And I think it drawsmaybe a personality type.
That's right.
That is is drawn to sort of,
(27:34):
you know, the kind of political culturethat we have today
and maybe notthe more philosophical intellectual types
that have flourished in American politicsin earlier generations.
Interesting.
You know, there isI suppose at a certain level,
we get the political leadersthat we deserve.
But I guess underlying what you just said
(27:55):
is that we've made holdingpolitical office
undesirable for many people.
Maybe that because it's financial,you have to raise so much money
to campaign or because of all the vitriol
that they have to sustainas candidates and elected officers.
I mean, you think about the branchof our government
(28:19):
that's supposed to be farthestremoved from politics.
It's the judiciary and the Supreme Court.
And you think about what the confirmationbattles are like for a lot of the people
who are nominated. That court,I mean. Who wants to be nominated?
I mean, yeah, the personal exposure ofnot just yourself,
but your familyto the very partizan attacks.
And it's so that's sort of an exampleof how the coarsening of politics,
(28:43):
I think, makes it difficultfor a lot of very good people
to want to say,I'm ready to sign up for that.
So of course, Americans were all famously
centered on North American, U.S.
culture, society, politics,
and we very rarely ventureoutside our own borders
(29:04):
to get a comparison to what's going onin the rest of the world. But
what is what we're talking aboutoccurring elsewhere
in Europe and other places where there'srepresentative democracy, you.
Know, So I can't claim to be an expert
in terms of the politicsof other countries.
I'm not a comparative this,but just as a consumer of of news,
(29:25):
it is clear that there has beena coarsening of politics,
at least throughout the West,
the rise of populist movementsand and such.
And so it's it's not just a usonly phenomenon, I would say,
but I would venture to guessthat the United States
is leading the league in in course,politics.
(29:50):
Not necessarily a category.
We want to be number one,but we have the distinction.
So I was always taught you know,follow the money, follow the money,
and meaning thatif you want to get the explanation
for motivations of just,you know, you know, follow the money and
when it comes to politics,
my first instinct is why is one place red,another place blue?
(30:14):
And I tell myself in my inner
voice, we'll follow the money, you know,what's the economy doing, Who's employed,
you know, and what whattraits and attributes that particular
economy bring with it.
And but, you know, as I say thatI'm not so sure that explains everything,
(30:35):
because I get a sensethere's a deeper ideology at play
that in some ways may be resistantto the follow the money
explanation.
Yes, follow the money is part of it.
But it's almost
you know, you could tell the folksin the Soviet Union,
you know, for decadesthat they're not doing well economically
(30:57):
compared to a capitalist economy.
But until the sky was about ready to fall,no one was ready to
to change how they approached
their their economy, the planned economy.
So here it did.
You have a sense on it when we talk aboutthe red blue divide, is it
just economies that are doing thisor is a lot more that's going on?
(31:17):
Well, I would say ultimately is probably
the political culture, the ideologythat's the dominant factor.
But I do think that economics
plays a role in
understanding our red blue divide.
So if youif you just compare California and Texas,
(31:38):
Texas thrives on a couple of things.
One is exploiting natural resources.
It's the biggest energyproducing state in the country.
And it's it's oil and gas.
As everybody knows,there's a fracking was invented in Texas
and it led to this enormous explosion
in the productivity of oiland natural gas in the United States.
(32:03):
The refineries are in Texas.
That is a central part of thethe Texas economy.
That's one thing.The other thing is low cost.
What Texas can offer businesses
that are looking for cutting costs
is that if you bring your businessto Texas,
will have lower taxes,lighter regulations, lower labor
(32:26):
costs, you can be more profitablein this environment.
And Texas make that promise.
But does Texas. Deliver?
Absolutely.It does deliver on that promise.
The the tax structure,the regulatory structure, the labor costs,
the cost of land, all of that is cheaperin in Texas than in blue states.
And so that's why you see a Charles Schwabor a Toyota USA
(32:50):
or a lot of these companiesthat have moved picked up from California
to other places to Texasand other red states.
That's why it's not becausethe weather's better in Texas.
It's not because
the cultural amenities are better
and it's because it's it's cheaper,it's more cost effective.
And so if you if you look at Texas, thethe economic foundation
(33:12):
underpinning of that state is resources
now being willing to and encouraging
the continued use of fossil fuelsas well as a broader sort of energy
economyand then the low cost of doing business.
Those align with conservativeRepublican policies and right.
(33:34):
On the other hand,California has aligned its economy
in a way that is more sort of suitedfor a progressive
political structure.
So what I mean by that California,a half century
and more agowas a big manufacturing economy.
There were auto plantsand and defense plants
(33:54):
and all of that throughout the state.
Auto manufacturing gone
for the most partin California, other heavy manufacturing
gone, the aerospace industry largely gone.
And so what's replaced it was replaced.
It has is largely trade.
And so logistics around the Port of LosAngeles and Long Beach, but also
(34:18):
more importantly, the tech industry
and Silicon Valley, which is the driver,
the absolute driver of California's
GDP. It's economic prosperity,it's revenues to the state
and and that sector,
the tech sector, is more alignedwith the Democratic Party
(34:38):
and progressive policiesand say the oil industry is right.
And so there's a closer fiteconomically between the California model,
economicallyand politically on the progressive side
and the Texas model politicallyand economically.
On the red side.
What was the California manufacturing base
driven out of the stateby California regulations and laws.
(35:03):
And partly that.
So just to take oneexample is labor costs.
Okay.
So the nation is pretty evenly dividedbetween states
that have pro-union,
pro organized labor,
state level laws, so that mandate,
(35:24):
you know,unionization and such, and states
that are called right to work statesor open shop states and.
Meaning you don't have to.
Be you don't have to bea member of a union in order to to work.
And the law prohibits
various forms of labor practices
that would force peopleinto those situations.
(35:44):
Similarly, on the public sectorside, California and other blue states
absolutely encourage public sectorunionization, red states don't.
And there's a very close tight connectionbetween
blue states and unionization,red states and nonunion zation.
And so that's that's one way in which
the economic system lines up closelywith the political system
(36:08):
in states throughout the country.
I do want to come back to the public
employee union issue,
a I do understand
it's a major driver into the redor the blue campaign.
It's been controversy as well,and maybe we can touch base
on the come back to that term.
(36:29):
Janice, again. Sure.
And not the Roman pagan god,but the Supreme Court decision which. Was.
Related to publicemployee unions and so forth.
But so so it is to a large
extent economically driven and.
We have a state like Texas, which
(36:51):
has a big oil and gas component.
It's the refineries and a lot of the otherstuff that goes with it, I suppose,
because I assume that with the oil and gas
business, there's a lot of machine toolingthat goes with that business as well.
That's right.
And those related industries,
California, traditionally big,big agricultural state, we forget that.
(37:13):
And it's I think Fresno County
in terms of value of agricultural output,is the biggest producer
by county in the country,probably the world.
And then, of course, Texas is very famous,
at least from the cattle standpoint.
(37:35):
And you're east of a certain line,I suppose, east of the
of the hill country.
You know, you have an agricultural area,but does
does the agricultural economic basein the states play
much of a impact on politicalthinking in either state these days?
Yes, I would say thethe agricultural sector
(37:57):
in Californiahas been a largely conservative sector.
And it was part of basically the the
Republican
coalitionfor a big part of the 20th century.
There were there were a lot of fights over
agricultural laborrelations in the 20th century.
(38:18):
So Cesar Chavez and the United FarmWorkers up against the major growers
are part of part of the agriculturesort of
ecosystem in California,is that we have very large scale
agricultureas a part as opposed to small family farm.
And it's highly productive.
It contributes a lot to the state economy,
(38:39):
but there aren't as many farmers as,
you know, potential constituents.
Voters voting bloc in Californiaas you might
guess, based on the agriculturalproductivity of the state.
One of the thing I would mentionjust in terms of
what a California industry
(39:00):
that we don't think much aboutis actually the oil industry.
California, at the beginning of the 20thcentury, was the world's
largest oil producer before before Texas
gained that title, and then laterSaudi Arabia.
And but I mean,if you you live in Southern California,
you can see pumpjacks still in places
(39:23):
like Berea and Orange County and,
you know, in Long Beach, there were a lot.
But the biggest oil producing regionis up in Kern County around Bakersfield.
And and such,and that's still producing oil.
But that the policies of the stateof California do not encourage
(39:44):
the continued developmentthat sector as opposed to Texas,
where the state government absolutelydoes encourage the oil industry.
Well, you know, ityou know, it seems to me that Texas
has been very successfulin terms of diversifying its energy.
And my primary basisfor speaking on that subject
(40:07):
is the winter, winter or so ago,when Texas
had an abnormally cold spelland all the wind turbines shut down.
And and I think that I and probablya lot of other people like that
were shocked because I assumethat all of the electrical get
and grid in Texas was generatedthrough some type of fossil fuel.
(40:32):
But it turns out that's just not the case.
And so
has there been a public policy in Texas
that is to diversify into renewable
sources of energy? Yeah, absolutely.
The Texaseconomy used to be much more heavily
(40:52):
dependent on oil and gas and
in general, the economy is diversified.
But in the energy sector. Absolutely.
Going back towhen George W Bush was governor of Texas,
he encouraged the development of
alternative energy.
(41:13):
And it's really been a little bitthrough public policy,
but it's really been more through marketincentives that Texas happens
to have a lot of sunshineand a lot of wind, especially west Texas.
And it's economically profitable
to build wind turbines and solar powerand install solar panels
(41:35):
and generate electricity at a ratethat can be
economically profitable.
So it hasn't been through mandates
by state government as much as it's beenthrough the private sector,
seeing an economic opportunityand moving into it.
And it's been remarkable.
Texas with. This,the old traditional capitalists.
The capitalists,you know, profit is the profit motive.
Driving is a situation where Texas is nowthe largest wind producer
(42:00):
by a large marginof any state in the union.
And it's above California.
Above California by far.
Right.And it's moving up and solar as well.
There's candidly some pushback in
among some conservatives in Texas that are
trying to say, well,
(42:20):
maybe we shouldn'tbe as invested in alternative energy
because partly because we might end upwith these situations
like with the big freezea couple of years ago,
but more generally wanting to protectthe oil and gas industry, I think.
But I think most of the business interestin Texas
embraces the idea of being all energy
producing, you know, both
(42:41):
in the fossil fuel and also inthe alternative renewable energy sectors.
So it would it be a true statementthen that
the electrical grid in Texas
has a higher percentage attributableto renewables than California does? Yes.
Yes. Well, in terms of percentage,because they produce high at all levels,
we actually don'twe don't produce enough electricity to
(43:06):
supply our needs in the state.
We have to import electricityfrom out of state into California,
whereas Texas is a net exporter.
Right.
And so they producea lot of electricity and energy generally.
And in absolute terms, Texas producesmore renewable energy.
In terms of percentages,I'm not quite sure where it would fit.
(43:28):
How did California get in the positionwhere
we have to buy our electricityfrom other states?
Well, there's a demand
which is peoplewant the lights to turn on, right?
And they wind need electricity.
And we have chosen
not to produce in various different ways.
(43:50):
So what are the various waysthat electricity is produced in the state
historically through fossil fuels?
And that's increasingly
the state has wanted to shut downthose sources of electricity.
The second source is hydro electric.
And we do have large dams that producesome some electricity,
but there's been no constructionof new dams in the state.
(44:12):
A third and huge sourcehas been nuclear reactors.
And we used to have three large ones.
We're down to oneand that's slated to be shut down.
And for a generation or more we've builtnew no new nuclear reactors.
And so what are we?
So we're relying on a diminishingnumber of power sources
and we have a large populationthat needs electricity.
(44:35):
So that's why we have to import.
Well, it does strike me as odd
that we have the political philosophythat in California
that restricts the use of fossil fuelsto produce electricity
and also nuclear visionto produce electricity.
But as a result, we're havingto go outside the state to buy it,
(44:58):
which means that some other state
is probably through fossil fuelsor nuclear or fission.
But to the California consumer,
I suspect that probably meansthat the California consumers
are paying a higher pricefor that electricity, and.
We pay way more for electricitythan most other places.
And it's supply and demand. Right.
(45:18):
If we were generating better supply,if we had
more nuclear plants or whatever source,
then that could bring electric rates,electricity rates down.
But we don't we'reI mean, the philosophy of
state policymakers is that we need to moveto all renewable and they don't count
(45:40):
nuclearas being a renewable energy source.
And so the policy is towardmore wind and solar,
which are the two primary sourcesand that it's great as far as it goes.
I mean, I put solar panels on my homeand I'm happy with that.
Right. And a lot of people are doing that.
It's becoming a larger percentage,but it's it's not sufficient, actually,
(46:03):
especially if we're movingto a total electrification
of our entire economy so that all vehiclesin the near future need to be
electricity driven as opposed to by force,where we need a source for that.
And we just don't have sufficientproduction of electricity
either now or in the foreseeablefuture to meet that demand.
And so we are having to go
(46:24):
to other sources out of state,and that's not economically efficient or
even environmentally efficient,because, as you say,
a lot of that out-of-stateelectricity is produced by
renewable sources.
Well, bear with me for a moment,
because I'm intrigued,maybe troubled by this,
(46:46):
because here we have Texas
a large part of the economy is driven
by the gas and oil sector,but yet they produce
far more electricity from renewablerenewables than California does.
And California, through its politics,
wants to produce electricitythrough a new renewables,
but it's a fraction of what is producedby renewables in Texas.
(47:10):
And that's strikesme as being mismanagement politically.
Yeah, well,
there's complication because people
in principle like renewables,they like wind energy. But
a lot of people don't want
windmills off the coast of Santa monica
or Malibu or, you know,the California coast is beautiful.
(47:32):
Right.
And and Texas doesn't have that concernedWest Texas wide open spaces.
Not a lot of people out there.
So it's easy to put up a lot of very largeturbines that can generate wind energy.
And there's not a lot of pushbackon that in California,
no matterthe energy source, there's going to be
(47:52):
some pushback in
terms of the estheticsor the environmental impact
of solar panels or wind turbines or
or nuclear reactors or whatever.
Right.
So it's a it's a difficult thingto achieve
in California's meeting the energy needs
and also meeting this other desirable.
(48:14):
It seems to me that there's
competing ideologies in Californiathat are butting heads.
We need the electricity,
and as long as we can sourceit outside the state, we get by with it.
Even though the people at the lowerend of the economic scale
are the ones who pay the penalty becausethey have to pay more for electricity,
although that's another issuethat's coming up before the PUC, which.
(48:35):
Yeah, so I mean this is the conflictis that
for on a lot of these policies
the progressive ideologywhich promotes things like
environmentalism or,
you know, labor rights or things
like thathave one can be on board for that.
(48:56):
But if you think about cumulatively whatthe economic impact is, it often times
can just raise the cost overall of goodsand services.
In California, it makes it prohibitive,really expensive for working class people
and poor people to live in the statewithout subsidies from the government.
And so you get into this kind of cycle
(49:16):
where it's too expensive to live hereunless the government
subsidizes you.
And the more government subsidiesthere are,
the more expensive government is,and it needs further revenues.
And it's it's it's a different modelthan sort of the low cost model
that Texas or other states pursue.
Well, the reference
I had to the PUC, the Public UtilitiesCommission in California,
(49:40):
I think the state legislaturea couple of years ago charged the PUC
with creating a charging mechanismthat isn't based upon consumption only,
but includes an extra taxbased upon income or wealth.
I'm not sure whether it's a combinationof the Commonwealth. Yeah.
Or both or one or the other. Yeah.
(50:00):
So it's essentially a socializationof electricity bills
so that everybody would paysort of an opening rate
for electricitythat would be based on their
I can't rememberwhether it's income or wealth.
And then there'd be a sort of a rate feeon top of that,
(50:20):
but poor people would startin a much lower base rate and wealthier
people with a higher base rate.
So if, you know, if I had a
if someone has a typical family, well, notthere are no typical families.
And we're let's say it's a familyof four living in a 2000 square foot home
electricity usage.
(50:40):
Let's just pick up that homeand transport it
from Los Angeles to,
let's say, Dallas Fort Worth.
How much less
would family expectto pay percentagewise for electrical use?
Yeah, I don't know the current figures,but I wouldn't be surprised if it's half
(51:00):
the utility bill in in Texasthat it would be in in California.
No, not. Shocking, actually.
That's a Yeah, well, you know,we all may be saved Fusion
and I love to hear every year
there's an update about some remarkablenew advance in fusion.
(51:21):
And I think the old line isthat we're only 15 years away from having
a commercially viable fusion reactionand we'll always be 15 years away.
That's right.
I mean, but
and, you know,
I guess then, of course, with fusion,you know, you know, would it have any
political headwinds?
Because most of us think of fusionin the same terms as vision, vision
(51:45):
as a heavy element, fusionas a light element,
but yet you don't have meltdownswith fusion,
You don't have that same levelof radioactivity.
So raises the question, wouldthere be any environmental opposition to
if we do develop a fusion reactors,you know, where would
the political opposition or environmentalor public health safety go?
(52:08):
Yeah, I'm not an expert on fusion,but as I understand, it doesn't have
the negative externalities of of visionthat both the danger of a meltdown,
which I think is relatively remote,but also the real problem
of disposal of spent nuclear energy.
Just becomes helium, doesn't it?
That's right.
So that it's you know,it is sort of the magic energy
(52:30):
and unfortunately,it's always 15 years away.
Right.
So is helium that gaswhen you when you suck it
in, that makes you sound like Donald Duck.That's right. That's right.
So we'd all just be walking aroundsounding like Mickey Mouse.
Right?
Right. That would be the fusion melt down.
So yeah.
In or.
Yeah.So I mean, that would be the exception.
I mean I think every other energy source,I mean,
(52:53):
unless I'm missing something, but
every other energy source has
its sort of negative
aspects to it in terms of either of
well for example
one of the problems with wind and solar,as you know, is that it's inconstant
and that wind doesn't always blowwhen the sun doesn't shine.
(53:15):
And so you have these fluctuations andwhat's really needed is storage batteries.
Right.And that hasn't been fully developed.
And so
and as I say, there's some environmental
impactseven to the collection and production
and distribution with power linesand such of of renewable energy.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.