Lead, don't follow

As I sit here, looking at the election map in the Globe, I am staggered -- simply staggered -- by the sea of red. What is wrong with us here in New England? Are we, and the other misfits on the West Coast and around the Great Lakes, this much out of step with the rest of the country? Should we in the blue states try to be more like them?

The answer is no. No. Now, more than ever, the blue states are going to have to lead, not follow.

With the White House and Congress a bright red, those who see it differently are going to have to look to the states as laboratories for change. The United States of California, a blue state (along the coast anyway), is pointing the way. California voters agreed to spend $3 billion over the next decade to fund stem-cell research that the federal government won't do. It is important work, which many Americans support, and it will put pressure on other states -- Massachusetts very much included -- to do the same. Sooner or later, maybe even Washington will get the message.

There is a long history of the states doing what the federal government won't. It was the state attorneys general who led the assault on the tobacco companies. Most recently New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has been turning Wall Street and the insurers inside out with his rolling investigations. Too often the evil he found was considered standard industry practice until someone said it was wrong. Now the Securities and Exchange Commission and other alleged regulators are running to catch up.

David Osborne, who wrote ''Laboratories of Democracy," says it was the states that took the lead in both education and welfare reform. In the early 1980s, with Ronald Reagan cutting money to the states and recession bearing down, the states began experimenting with aggressive industrial policy, which tried to use the universities and venture capital to fix their economies. ''The states couldn't look to the federal government anymore, and they were desperate, creating a huge wave of innovation," Osborne said. Blue Pennsylvania was among the most successful.

This is messy business doing it this way. Bad stuff, as well as good, gets done. It can create a patchwork quilt of regulation that can be inefficient, or worse. And in a global economy there are clear limits: Air pollution, for instance, doesn't recognize state lines. But with the nation so red, and Washington so Republican, we have no choice.

The blue states may be badly outnumbered, but we are not without resources. We have brains and dough, not a bad place to begin. We are the home of Silicon Valley and Route 128. New York and Chicago, Boston and San Francisco are all glorious blue. We have Harvard and MIT and Stanford to name just three.

Consider the energy situation. In a second term, the Bush oil men are already talking about new supply and exploration. Even with oil at nearly $50 a barrel, conservation is still a rumor in Washington. But California in September passed a plan that will force automakers to increase sharply the fuel efficiency of millions of vehicles. If it survives legal challenges from the auto industry, others states, many of them blue, are expected to follow.

The Massachusetts Senate twice passed a measure that declares the state's support for stem-cell research, though it died both times in negotiations with the House. Now with California upping the ante in a big way, Massachusetts may have to reconsider if we want to stay competitive. That's how change happens; good ideas gain traction. If we are not willing to lead, then shame on us.

Steve Bailey is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at bailey@globe.com or at 617-929-2902.