Note: I'm just thinking this through and presenting plausable arguments, even if I'm not completely moved by them. Let's have the discussion to see what works and what doesn't.
Some of us really like the Tenth Amendment. We think the bloated, intrusive, bureaucratically-crippled federal government needs to be put back in its box, the box compacted, and then sealed in lead. I'm usually one of them, but I'm reevaluating my stance for now.
Here's my basic hypothesis: If we must have government, then we should have an energetic one. At least the federal government can do things. Granted, it's a loaded gun with a hair trigger, so it's very dangerous, but there is no way to uncock it. If we have such a dangerous thing lying around, then we (the right) should accept its reality and do everything we can to be in control of it. Allowing the left to get their hands on it guarantees it will go off and that it will do a lot of damage. If it can't be eliminated, the best we can hope for is some control over it.
Secondarily, why bother with pushing power back down? Local government is no less dangerous than federal, and there are simply more of them. Corruption is just as plentiful at the state and local level as it is at the federal level. I think the City of Bell, California, and quite a few of the states prove this point. We've all seen it at the local level if we've paid attention. Anyone who has ever tried to get a city or county permit to do anything with his own property understands this.
So, if government is inherently dangerous and corrupt, why not just have one that can really do things, but have us as the ones controlling it? The only other option is some form of codified libertarianism, but human nature thwarts any attempt to put such a system in place. As soon as we turn people loose they turn on each other, and the need for some form of efficacious government arises. Is it possible that only one government could be the path to the smallest and most effective form of government overall?