Following the 2020 elections, more than 75% of all Americans live in a “trifecta” state where one political party controls both legislative chambers and the governor’s mansion. Among the 38 state governments under one-party rule, Republicans and Democrats control 23 and 15 of these states, respectively. Texas has been a Republican trifecta since 2003, while Democrats have controlled California since 2011.

In Texas vs. California: A History of Their Struggle for the Future of America, Kenneth P. Miller examines the causes and consequences of the “sibling rivalry” of these two “mega-states” (p. 5). In a well-written and extensively researched book, Miller explores why these “mirror image” states have diverged given their commonalities, how these differences are expressed, competing policy portfolios, and what the future of this rivalry might come to look like.

In the first part of the book, Miller examines the origins and competing demographic, economic, and cultural explanations for polarization in four fast-paced chapters. Yet each chapter covers a wealth of historical information, giving readers a sense that they intimately know Texas and California in depth.

Miller documents the similar Spanish and Mexican ancestry, geographic surroundings, and paths to statehood shared by the states. The notable slave presence and broader divisions on slavery set each state on a path to resemble other union or confederate states. Here I would have liked to see Miller say more about the centrality of this question in shaping future political development (akin to Desmond King and Rogers Smith, “Racial Orders in American Political Development,” American Political Science Review, 2005). Is the struggle between Texas and California just another skirmish in the long history of conflict between these factions?

Race and ethnicity play a prominent role in the evolution of red and blue America. Refuting the argument that demography is destiny, Miller argues how, despite their similarities as populous majority-minority states, demographics are insufficient to explain the partisan trajectories taken by the competing states. A quantitative-minded reader would likely need more persuading, gained by extending the discussion beyond a bivariate assessment of presidential exit polls that examine candidate preferences by race (which Miller, to his credit, does offer with caution). A more nuanced analysis of the other demographic factors at play would strengthen the conclusions drawn here.

Miller expands on origin and racial explanations by pointing to underlying cultural factors as the most persuasive ones in the sibling rivalry. Using Daniel Elazar’s typology from American Federalism: A View from the States (1972), Miller persuasively places Texas as a hybrid between traditionalist Southern states and Western libertarianism, making the state reliably conservative. California, a moralistic state, pursues more progressive policies as Northern California plays a more preeminent role in shaping the state’s culture than Southern California. Miller deftly walks the reader through each state’s early history to the modern-day political alignment.

As the parties grow more polarized, each state’s economy increasingly aligns with the politics of each state. The “Texas Model” of low taxes and limited regulation allows the state’s economy to transition to oil and a more diversified energy portfolio. The “California Model” of progressive social and economic policies allows California to be a hub for innovation and creativity. Taken together, the unique interplay between origins, demographics, economics, and culture provides Texas and California, “the nation’s largest and most powerful states” the opportunity to serve as “the natural leaders of red and blue America” (p. 128).

In part II, Miller documents the consequences of the Texas and California models in the policy areas of taxes, labor, energy and the environment, poverty, and social issues. In spite of unified control, states still experience constraints that might prevent them from pursuing their ideological programs. First, one-party states may experience conflict from within. In the absence of two-party competition, the dominant party might pursue an ideologically driven agenda that alienates aspects of their coalition. Given the volume of examples provided in these chapters, this appears to be the least persuasive constraint.

In a federalist system, states experience conflict from above, because they must work in tandem with the federal government. Examples provided include Texas’s unwillingness to expand Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act and California’s need for federal waivers to implement a single-payer health care system. States also experience conflict from below. In particular, Texas frequently passes preemption laws to thwart progressive policies from the growing urban metropolitan areas on a range of issues including raising the minimum wage, anti-fracking legislation, and protecting LGBTQ rights.

My primary concern with the book is in the application beyond these two states. Its comparison of Texas and California is a persuasive and engaging read, but I found the evidence that these two states are leading a broader struggle between red and blue less convincing. In part I, Miller persuasively demonstrates that these two are unlike other states: they are “mega-states.” In terms of case selection to draw inferences for all 50 states, they are larger, more racially diverse, and have larger, more robust economies. In many respects, they have more in common with other countries than with other red and blue states.

Concerns about generalizations aside, the book asserts California and Texas as leaders, but additional analysis and the incorporation of sources from the broader state politics literature are necessary to better support that claim. For example, what role do California and Texas play in the passage of model legislation and the role of multi-state interest groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)? (see Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, “Who Passes Business’s ‘Model Bills’? Policy Capacity and Corporate Influence in U.S. State Politics,” Perspectives on Politics, 2014).

Do the policy ideas from California and Texas spread to other states? Or do these states adopt policies originating from other states? (see Charles R. Shipan and Craig Volden, “The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion,” American Journal of Political Science, 2008). Although Miller does mention the active role of state attorneys general in suing the federal government, are Texas and California suing more than other states? Did they start this trend? (see Paul Nolette, Federalism on Trial: State Attorneys General and National Policymaking in Contemporary America, 2015, or Paul Nolette and Colin Provost, “Change and Continuity in the Role of State Attorneys General in the Obama and Trump Administrations,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 2018).

Overall, Miller provides an illuminating deep dive into the past, present, and future of Texas and California politics. I found the assessment of the competing models to be even-handed and generally fair throughout the text. Each policy chapter presents the virtues and shortcomings of the Texas and California models on relatively equal footing. Ultimately, it is a trade-off. Miller provides a thorough examination of how well California and Texas pursue these models in their home states. This book would be a wonderful addition and provide comparative leverage to a class syllabus on either Texas or California politics.

Significant portions of the narrative, most notably the conclusion, use US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’s assertion that states can serve as laboratories of democracy. Miller asks the fundamental question if this virtuous take on federalism works when we have two blocs of states pursuing diametrically opposed, incompatible policy programs. This is a big question, and Miller is right to ask it.