The challenger: B.J. Lawson is running for election on the Republican ticket in North Carolina's Fourth District

The Interview is a periodic feature of extended interviews with people who affect our community, written by members of the editorial board. This is the second of two interviews preceding our endorsement for Congress on Wednesday. Monday, Mark Laichena wrote about David Price. Today, Cameron Parker writes about B.J. Lawson.

Before we even begin the formal interview, B.J. Lawson is knee-deep into a discussion on the financial crisis — discussing credit derivatives and mortgage-backed securities.

His detailed grasp of the issues contradicts what might be the most prominent criticism of him: that he is just an angry Tea Party supporter.

Lawson says that he is running in 2010 for the same reasons he ran in 2008 — he is concerned about the direction of the country. More specifically, there are four things he explicitly identifies: jobs, the economy, health care and trust in government.

In speaking with Lawson, it’s clear that much of his world view was shaped by his entrepreneurial experience.
Lawson studied engineering and medicine at Duke, but left surgical residency to start MercuryMD, a company specializing in hospital software. It became a leading provider of data management in health care and was acquired by the Thomson Corporation in 2006.

“Economically, we were living the golden rule,” says Lawson of managing his company. “Do well by doing good,” the mantra he used, becomes a motif throughout the discussion.

And, as Lawson sees it, his entrepreneurial efforts were somewhat stifled by government intrusion. He feels that at some point, he spent more time taking care of government than his workers.

“We have to fundamentally realize that prosperity does not come from Washington,” he says. He seems deeply concerned about what he calls “crony capitalism,” private sector competition for the fruits of government largesse.

It is a departure from his opponent, Rep. David Price, who boasted in our discussion about the projects he has brought to the district through his influence in government.

Lawson seems to be a conservative more in the flavor of Ron Paul than Jesse Helms. He says he “has a hard time with labels,” but looks to the Constitution.

Invoking his science background, he compares money flowing to power like water flowing down a hill — “It’s kind of a law of physics.”

To that end, he is critical of the money from political action committees that he claims his opponent has accepted.

But when asked if he would take money from PACs, he is coy: “It’s not like I turn down money if someone gave it to me.”

In a district with universities and start-ups that benefit greatly from government grants, his opposition feels unsatisfying. Lawson seems to know this but trudges on faithfully anyway.

“There’s a lot of economic vibrancy in the Fourth District,” he says. Then he seamlessly transitions, saying, “We are in danger of becoming too dependent on the government for that vibrancy.”

He notes that every dollar the government sends here is a dollar that, in private hands, might have been invested elsewhere. Given the comparatively worse economic climate in other parts of the state and nation, it’s a solid point.

And in the absence of federal funding, Lawson seems convinced that the University can get along just fine.
“People are excited to get up every day and change the world by starting in their backyard,” he says. Again, his entrepreneurship is showing. It’s an admirable idealism — but it’s still idealism.

It’s no secret that UNC benefits greatly from government grants, especially in the area of medicine. When asked what the University would do in the absence of such funding, he answers, “There can be no sacred cows.” As Lawson sees it, it’s simply funding narrow interests with borrowed money, and it’s not sustainable.
So why should students vote for Lawson? His answer: “I think students want a job when they graduate.”
But what could Lawson realistically expect to achieve as a freshman Congressman?

He specifically cites his support for keeping the Bush tax cuts and for the Read the Bills Act, which would require every bill to be read before Congress and posted online at least seven days before a vote.
If Lawson has it his way, he will be in Washington for eight years. He has committed to stepping down after four terms.

“It’s addicting — the perks, the perception of power — it’s a bubble,” he says of Washington, D.C.
He feels that all politicians, including himself, are vulnerable to these corrupting influences.
“I’m not running against a 22-year incumbent, I’m running against the idea of a 22-year incumbent,” he says, reminding us of how long his opponent has been in office.

He frames it using a business reference, saying that like with the CEO at a company, transition planning is important.

Ironically, his opponent uses a similar metaphor to argue the other way: “Would a business kick anybody out after eight years?”

Lawson’s views are different, but they are logically consistent. He believes in a very different government — one that is smaller and more local.

How much he might accomplish in Washington, though, is another matter entirely.