http://www.greenfaucet.com/hanlons-pub/alaska-o...

Interesting take on the debacle.

I'll look forward to your next installment, when I hope you will explain that. While reading the current installment, that was the alarm bell ringing in my mind.
The states' rights' argument has become something of a cliche'd panacea for a multitude of complex problems, appearing to be an across-the-board solution without facing up to the consequent problems it produces.

I like the idea of localities being the generators of new ideas, though, with the accent on 'new'. and the emphasis on situation specific.
It reminds me of the initiative some factories took to solicit suggestions from ordinary workers as to how the plant could work better, more efficiently and more harmoniously. As I remember (I read about this some years ago) these initiatives were highly successful The best solutions don't always originate in the board room.
On the other hand, the workers themselves didn't decide which suggestions to implement. Populist democracy has its limits, too,

It's the back and forth, eclectic mix that appeals to me.

It's a more purposeful (and idealistic) role for Washington to play, which could be proposed by the GOP as an alternative to business as usual but still retains much power and control in Washington. (Actually, some of the language in it could be right out of the Obama camp.)

Or those in Washington believe they know best and they want as much power as they can arrogate, so they prefer to control things centrally and “top-down,” with widespread support of those who find this acceptable or even preferable.

And a critic would continue:

“They would have to set broad standards (basic rules of the road);”

In our system this is only legitimate when the people have agreed that this be done in Washington. Standards or uniformity can be great, but it has to be arrived at the right way, and we don't want an excess of such basic rules and standards.

“then catalyze (spark) front-line innovations that operate within those rules;”

This goes not only into social engineering but industrial policy if you think about it.

“and then backstop the most promising of those innovations when they hit rough patches.”

Same as above, as well as flirting with moral hazard and dependency.

The states-as-laboratories concept is more faithful to our true system and heritage and seems less encumbered.

In addition to the problem of people having no respect for constitutional federalism for decades and perversely looking first rather than last to Washington (which is not “above” everything else, even if it is possible to conceive of a great deal of overlap with presumed federal supremacy), a related question is just what do people nowadays want the states to be, and what kind of revision to the system is needed for the concept in the USA of the states to be in any way meaningful beyond mere provinces or jurisdictional districts (and a farm system for Washington politicians)?