What Is Ed Emery Talking About?

I've read Rep. Ed Emery's (R-Lamar) latest op-ed in the Joplin Independent three or four times, and am just confused.  Consider these two paragraphs:

A national government, on the other hand is the opposite of federalism. It reduces statehood to geography and fosters political posturing and prejudice. Such a governing structure is designed to protect and promote the status quo. It is by nature a hindrance to change because there are no "state-laboratories," no places to test new ideas or debunk old ones. Once nationalized, public policy becomes the best by default, not by performance.

Washington D.C. is actively indoctrinating America away from federalism and toward a nationalistic government - one size fits all. We must not stand idly by and allow Missouri to be swept up into failed public policies against our will just because a political elite demands that we conform. America did not begin as a nation of conformists, nor will it survive as such.

I'm guessing that Emery is concerned about the health care reform and climate change bills under consideration right now, but it's not very clear. He blames "Washington D.C." (e.g., Kit Bond, Roy Blunt, Claire McCaskill, Ike Skelton) for "indoctrinating America away from federalism and toward a nationalistic government," but only after stating that a "national government...is designed to protect and promote the status quo."  So Missouri's representatives in Congress are simultaneously working to destroy America by keeping it exactly as it is? 

Here's another bit that stood out:

Federalism was the ideal model for improvement because it acknowledged each state as a laboratory of ideas. No state had a monopoly on good public policy. States retained autonomy over education, business, religion, over how to address healthcare or poverty.

Just what sort of "autonomy" over business and religion is Emery hoping he and his colleagues in the General Assembly can take back?

Or is this one of those op-ed's that isn't supposed to make sense?