The United States is a misnomer. Despite its title, our republic has rarely been united, instead hosting an endless gladiatorial contest between different states and regions. In the early 19th century, New York and New England struggled for supremacy against the Virginians and their empire of cotton. Gotham then took the field against the Chicago stockyards, before losing out to those upstarts in California. And now, the West Coasters are themselves under attack: from the Lone Star State.
Texas today is irrepressible. If the numbers are right, it could soon pass California and become America’s most populous state. Texas is also the nation’s second youngest state, even as it enjoys higher net migration than any of its peers. Tellingly, many new arrivals are exiles from the Golden State. This buoyancy isn’t hard to understand. Shaking off its reactionary heritage, Texans now wallow in progress, building more and making more than anyone else, with some boozing and dancing as they go. At its best, in fact, this blend of high-tech growth and gentle multiculturalism could yet rebuild America — if, that is, its worst conservative instincts can be repressed.
In a sense, Texan success within the United States is ironic. After declaring independence from Mexico, in 1836, it enjoyed a reputation as a place to “flee” the tyranny of Washington. By the time it joined the union, nine years later, the 28th state was dominated by planters and ranchers, groups that eagerly embraced both slavery and the Confederacy. After losing the Civil War, Texans were left bitter and impoverished, their natural bounty in hock to far-off Northern bankers. To quote Wilbert “Pappy” O’Daniel, governor and then senator in the Forties, Texas had become “New York’s most valuable foreign possession”.
For all its bloody-minded independence — Steinbeck was surely right when he called Texas “a nation in every sense of the word” — it would ultimately be the federal government that dragged the state’s marshes and prairies into the 20th century. The New Deal brought electricity to remote rural areas, and massively expanded the all-important Houston Ship Channel. The boom in a quintessentially Texan product surely helped too. “Oil is money,” the historian Robert Bryce has written. “Money is power.”
Dovetailed with a degree of racial pragmatism, with Houston desegregating far more easily than Atlanta, Texas also began to move beyond its dependence on oil and gas. Prodded along by LBJ and other native sons, for instance, Houston emerged as the centre of a gigantic new space centre. And if that banished memories of the city’s parochial past — as recently as 1946, the writer John Gunther grumbled about hotels filled with cockroaches — other towns rose too. Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio and Austin, together known as the Texas Triangle, are now home to two-thirds of the state’s population and 70% of its GDP.
Not, of course, that this is simply a historical tale. For if 20th-century Texas flourished on a mix of social peace, low taxes and light-touch regulation, their successors are sipping much the same brew. The numbers here are clear. Texas’s overall tax burden, according to one recent study, ranked 37th out of 50: hardly the best, but much better than California (5th) or New York (1st).
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeObvious commissioned piece.
This was a halfways-decent article. I noted a few ad-hominems from the author, as his biases filtered through his words, but if I ignore his opinions, this is a somewhat solid analysis and study of trends in several US states. B-.
I would like to see Kotkin’s world view take over the Democratic Party. He’s a Clinton era Liberal. He’s socially libertarian and not interested in abolishing the free market. It’s a much more feasible path than the reactionary Cenk Uygar/Bernie Sanders path they’re tilting towards in response to Trump.
As a Conservative, I look forward to opposing and learning from people like him. It could actually produce constructive dialogue.
In my opinion, the foundations of his neo-feudalism hypothesis are laid precisely by the crony market fundamentalism and financial (!) deregulation of the Clinton era. If I remember correctly Kotkin argues something similar.
It seems to me libertarians and some conservatives are easily mesmerized by saying the right words like “government is the problem”, “free market”, “deregulation”, “spending less” etc. When you say these things they seem oblivious to the fact that something very different is actually being pushed in the real world.
On one hand it’s true that the “free market” I’m referring to has elements of cronyism. Its obviously not possible to strip out all government involvement in the markets. Clearly an increase in government contracts will lead to a rise in certain stocks. Caterpillar for example usually benefits when a state or Federal Government funds infrastructure projects.
But the existence of government contracts in the market isn’t as bad as a government that sets production targets to achieve social goals like “carbon reduction” or “diverse representation” which do nothing to produce growth. So I’ll cede you the term “Free Market” is a bit mythical and maybe the real debate is between Growth and Degrowth. Or maybe even profit motive vs social motive.
I like the odds of an economy that pursues profit to produce more abundance than one aspiring to “reduce inequality.” I’ve yet to see a so-called “egalitarian society” that doesn’t exacerbate inequality through top-down grift.
There is a lot more, and I mean a lot more, involvement than just government contracts. Take all the subsidies, on various types of energy, for example. Actually fossil fuels are subsidized too. There is protectionism within shady trade deals across the board. Not to mention manipulation of monetary policy by central banks. And last but not least, everyone is laboring under the assumption that there will always be bailouts when the big boys fail.
I’d go as far as to suspect the post-80s system was neither primarily designed to produce growth, nor equality but to facilitate wealth transfer to the top. So basically inequality. After all, it is the only thing it actually did well.
A degree of trade protectionism is necessary for security and to create a somewhat more fair climate for American businesses to function. The people that install all kinds of minimum wage laws and labor regulations seem to have no problem buying imported products from sweatshop nations. Btw this is like the argument against illegal immigration case. If there was no generous welfare state, there would be far less reason to limit illegal immigration.
A somewhat similar case can be made for farm and energy subsidies. Unless international trade partners are playing by the same rules; a degree of assistance is necessary to assure domestic markets can function. I’m not going to defend the entirety of subsidies. I have no doubt there are abuses but they’re a byproduct of a heavy handed big government system in the first place.
As far as the Central Bank, I don’t know what to tell you. The Fed operates independently so that problem is beyond the scope of any political action.
You make it sounds like the West engages in protectionism because other counties do it. But it is pretty much the other way around. No advanced economy has ever developed without protectionism. There are countries where it almost doesn’t happen though. We usually refer to those countries as the third world.
It is really not just a few subsidies, it’s tax breaks and financial support everywhere. Remember that money is unbacked and can be created with a keystroke. So taxes, tax breaks, money creation and subsidies are all basically similar operations which can and are used to control and plan the economy. On that note it is of course hopelessly naive to think central banks are actually independent and non-political. That is the case de jure but not de facto.
If everybody is heavily engaged in trade protectionism it kind of defeats the primary critique of “Neoliberalism” that unregulated international trade is the default.
But to my main point, I don’t see how you can avoid protectionism if you want a functioning economy these days. There’s no way to generate domestic price competition without it. You just have Monopolies running everything.
How do smaller businesses compete against Big box stores that import most of their goods in bulk from sweatshop markets? Tariffs might temporarily raise prices on imported goods but they also create an avenue for other stores that produce domestically to competitively price. Not to mention minimum wage and labor regulations are significantly more burdensome on small companies than large ones.
So you might be correct that a massive wealth transfer is occurring but that transfer is a byproduct of excessive regulations and labor rules that favor multinational megacorporations.
Right, so I don’t think we disagree much then. It was my point that neoliberalism isn’t really what people think it is and it never was. Although there is a difference between market intervention and regulation against wild financial speculation, for example.
Texas has been Americanized.
She is Oklahoma or North Carolina, except with bigger hats and taller tales.
Before, America could rely on Texas good sense and fighting spirit.
But at long last, Texas has been Americanized. A pity.
Nope. We have bigger dreams and ambitions, and the old “wildcatter” mentality. Which is precisely why Musk pulled out of Cali and moved his operations to Texas…as have lots of other Fortune 500 firms. The upside is Texas remains a job-creation dynamo. The downside is that traffic is among the worst in the country. One other dubious result is that the state has managed to get essentially every major highway under construction simultaneously…making even inter city travel atrocious.
Next up on the drawing boards: plans for a Texas-based stock exchange to compete with the NYSE.
This was hilarious, thanks for a great laugh.
Half way through the piece, after listing our accomplishments and many reasons why we flourish, you went crazy and let your fangs show, blaming and mischaracterizing the people/party/policies which have been solely responsible for our state’s thriving.
We welcome you and invite you to participate in the state of knowing what works and why.
Liberal always show their true colors.
I wonder if European countries will show something similar to this US flight from the coastal cities. Most European countries have developed similar problems where metropolitan areas gentrified, absorbed all the (paper) wealth, produced massive real estate bubbles which, in the end, make these areas increasingly unlivable.
Had to laugh at his reference to “prayer meets.” Typo or ignorance?
Texas – the one star state
Take off your rose colored glasses. Liberals will be the death of Texas. Property taxes are moderate at likely to get worse if schools and municipalities are to continue functioning. Too many retired “100%” disabled (who are drawing a pension AND working a full time job) get the pass on property taxes so the burden grows heavier and heavier on those who do have to pay.
Walk onto any construction site – master planned community, commercial, whatever – and you’ll be hard pressed to find a US citizen working there. Empty Mondelo beer cans littered everywhere by noon and guys sleeping it off in the half done houses at lunchtime. Quality of construction has gone off the cliff. Ask anyone who has bought in the past 5 years.
Gangs are rampant in the Triangle as well, sorely underreported.
And the glut of arrivals – legal and otherwise – has led to an oversupply of bodies looking for work and an under supply of good paying jobs. I know of one young man who sent out 400 resumes in one year before landing a position in engineering.
Here’s hoping the new administration will make good quickly on the deportation plan and shut the border day one. Then we must find the at least 300k children the current administration has lost after turning them over to “sponsors” or foster care.
if, that is, its worst conservative instincts can be repressed.
And what are those, pray tell? A belief in God and a distaste for abortion. In both cases, a strong argument could be made that Texas is responding to the left’s excesses. It was not the right that racializes every aspect of life with its oppressor/oppressed binary; it is not the right that is bent on sexualizing children from kindergarten on up; and it was not the right that brought about the Supreme Court decision on Roe/Wade.
What Kotkin leaves out is how many refugees from places like California conveniently forget the reasons why they fled. I saw this first-hand while living in Nevada, which went from near-frontier status to something much different from the colonization of leftists incapable of connecting dots. Eventually, there will be enough of them to threaten the state’s current red status, which wasn’t always red, just like CA was not always deep blue.
Perhaps. But people also change when they move from somewhere like coastal California cities to Nevada.
The things I recall from spending time in Texas (over 30 years ago, though I doubt it’s changed that much) were: 1) they think big and do things big and fast (it’s a huge state with lots of space) – people are looking to get things done, not for excuses and to block stuff, 2) they’re very self-confident and don’t care what outsiders think (less deference to European ideas and values than some other parts of the US), 3) at the same time, it’s a pretty friendly and welcoming culture, 4) going to church is taken pretty seriously and can be a social advantage. I didn’t really appreciate it in the early 90s. Probably would more now though.
It’s curious that a lot of the US progressives look to Europe for ideas. In Texas, they took talented Europeans ang got them to do stuff, but never tried to become anything other than Texan. Texan first, American second. Almost like they’re from Yorkshire (with grudging respect to Yorkshire which it took me decades to appreciate) !
“What Kotkin leaves out is how many refugees from places like California conveniently forget the reasons why they fled.”
Yes, didn’t Houston government get taken over by progressives? Isn’t there a progressive DA? If you leave California because of its numerous failures, leave your stupid woke/progressivism at the border. Progressives are the snake in the garden, and we know how that turned out.
The growth in the Houston metro region is mostly in counties other than Harris and in suburban areas outside Houston proper. That’s due to the soft-on-crime attitudes and rampant corruption in the Dem-run city.
Texas was Democrat in the slave/reconstruction era (as was the entire Old South). It evolved to become conservative Democrat by the 60’s – 70’s (LBJ, Ann Richard’s, etc.). Then the national Democratic Party started trending still farther left, while most Texans remained conservative to moderate. “Blue dog” Dems ceased to exist and that party was taken over by socialist progressives. And, as they say, “that dog don’t hurt” in Texas.
Texas is also a destination for two or three home retirees. A functional, patriotic state with no state income tax? Yes! I would rather have Texas residency by living there for six months and a day and have my vote count for something than pay state income taxes and waste a vote in blue Illinois
“If we can just suppress the conservative instincts that made this place such a success for long enough, we should be able to ship in enough San Francisco exiles to flip the whole thing to the doom cycle us Democrats know and love”
In all honesty, not a bad summary of Texas on the whole, but your politics are showing, and let’s just say, we don’t agree.
Left leaning authors can’t help but reference the “far-right boogeyman” even as the “far-left boogeyman’s” drool is dripping onto their shoes.
Is Kotkin joking? The hope is that Texans put their faith in ‘centrist politicians’ promoting ‘social justice’ without falling into culture war manias? Please.
There’s no such thing as ‘social justice’ on our God-given green earth. Promoting such utopian fantasies outside of heavenly transcendence has always been the express lane to socialism, totalitarianism, and tyranny.
If Texas wants to thrive, it needs to keep do-gooders like Mr. Kotkin at least a state line away.