This year the Republicans are putting up no candidate on the general election ballot for the Massachusetts Eighth Congressional District. But Representative Stephen Lynch, a Democrat from South Boston who has held a seat in the House since 2001, is encountering competition from Stoughton native Jonathan Lott.

With the time remaining before November 3 dwindling, Lott, a first-time contender for the seat, faces the huge task of making his policy positions better known to voters across the communities of the district in an era when in-person gatherings are few in number and, by law, relatively sparsely attended, in order to prevent further spread of the coronavirus.

Nevertheless Lott is forging ahead, centering his campaign on responding to the climate crisis that many scientists say is manifesting itself around the globe, and on improving the way in which citizens can access medical care in this country.

Recently The Dedham Times and the candidate conducted an interview via email. The interview appears below; it has been edited to fit the format of this newspaper.

1. What did you learn from your time as a member of Stoughton Town Meeting that would help inform your approach to legislating, if you are elected?

Follow the money. It might surprise you where it’s going—and how many people will vote for whatever is recommended to them by the selectmen and selectwomen. I see how passionate people can be in disagreement without it affecting their personal relationships.

Politics is a very social sport, and you have to understand your own cognitive biases and work to maintain relationships. I recommend to anyone interested in how their town works to run for Town Meeting Rep.

2. What are some votes Representative Stephen Lynch has cast as a member of the U.S. House that you consider especially troubling?

I like to see myself as running for the seat rather than against Stephen Lynch. I respect Congressman Lynch and his long service to our country. There are a lot of issues that I don’t hear any American politician talking about these days: holding another constitutional convention, restricting the power of the president, the upcoming water wars, national debt, geoengineering, ocean acidification, and the bioethics of the future of earth, among other things. We cannot continue to kick the can down the road for future generations.

    3. Climate change is definitely happening, according to an overwhelming majority of scientists who have studied it.  What is your position on the Paris Agreement of 2015 as well as on the Green New Deal as advocated by such members of Congress as Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of the Fourteenth District of New York?

Paris didn’t go far enough in its benchmarks or enforcement mechanisms, but we shouldn’t have withdrawn from the agreement. There are other climate tipping points (like the melting permafrost, the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, the blue ocean event, etc.) that make it necessary for the international community to draft stronger environmental treaties in the future. We are headed towards a global ecological collapse that is almost unstoppable now, and will be in a few years if humanity doesn’t get its act together.

Regarding the Green New Deal, I support it, but I have no illusions that it could get passed, even with a unified Democratic government. The GND is a set of ideals, an aspiration to which we can strive. The government will never pass a federal job guarantee or allocate the funds necessary for a giant light rail network across the country, and the GND would be more politically palatable if certain facets of it were excised altogether and other parts passed as separate bills.

We cannot grow infinitely on a finite planet, and everything is happening faster now. We aren’t really solving the climate problem if we increase our solar/hydro power production but scale up consumption alongside it. Our lifestyles are too energy-dependent, and the only way out is for the policymakers to shift the system of incentives away from overconsumption. Stopping climate collapse is a matter of national security.

    4. This year so far, there has been massive unrest in numerous cities in this country regarding criminal justice concerns.  What do you advocate as ways to maintain an orderly society but at the same time implement some law enforcement reforms?

There has been a DOD policy for a while of passing down used military equipment to local police, and I believe this must be restricted considerably. I also support, at a federal level, removing qualified immunity and ending the counterproductive Drug War. Change tends to work best when it comes from the bottom up, and most law enforcement is local; meaningful reform must come from individual towns and cities coming together democratically and voting for the community governance that they want.

    5. Regarding health care your campaign website states in part, “We desperately need to decouple healthcare from employment.”  Would citizens be able to opt out of a Medicare-for-All system of the sort you envision in order to stay on a health insurance plan provided through their employer?  Similarly, would citizens be able to opt out of Medicare-for-All if they now have private coverage they like which is not connected to their employer?

Most employers would be thrilled if the burden of arranging their employees’ health insurance could be shifted to the government. I don’t think a lot would change for those people in terms of healthcare coverage and quality. Ideally, no American could opt out of such a system, which would cover emergencies, births, most doctor visits and medication, and other hospitalizations.

I have no objection to private insurance companies running alongside such a system (to cover special treatments, whatever medical futuretech exists in the near future, etc.), but I imagine few people would pay for that after a few years of Medicare (the second most popular government program in America, after Social Security). We are in a pandemic, a depression (the market crash is imminent), and a transformational gig economy, and many Americans are being kicked off their healthcare at a time when we need to expand coverage and reduce costs.

    6. One policy you set forth is Universal Basic Income.  Can you explain a bit about how that might work?  As a follow-up question, do you anticipate that the proposal if enacted into law would increase or reduce our federal deficits each year?

The details of UBI would be ironed out by Congress and ideally form the large part of another stimulus package. Andrew Yang proposed that it be funded through a VAT tax, and the CBO will determine how it can best be done. Follow the data.

    7. What is your opinion about the concepts some groups have promoted during the current presidential campaign for enhancing the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, such as by expanding the number of Justices or limiting their terms to 18 years each?

I still believe the Supreme Court is 100% legitimate, even though the Republicans’ behavior in 2016 was spiteful and mean-spirited. The 18-year limit is interesting, but we haven’t seen the full details of this proposal yet. How do we address current Justices’ terms, deaths of existing Justices, and efforts to block nominees like in 2016? Packing the court, increasing the number of sitting Justices, would erode the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, and I oppose it.

    8. What is your view in brief about how the current U.S. House has addressed the coronavirus pandemic, in terms of things the House has done well and also areas for improvement?

 It’s complicated, I think the stimulus so far has been fairly poorly organized. Some people were making more money on unemployment than they were while working, and many others not making enough on unemployment, while others were forced to continue working for zombie businesses that will never again be economically sustainable. I oppose bailing out the airlines and most other industries unsustainable in the new normal, and it’s unrealistic to expect a restaurant to even cover their costs at 25% capacity. We have to stipulate that corporate stimulus doesn’t go towards bonuses for executives; nobody liked how that played out in 2008-2009.

I favor a UBI, at least until we receive vaccines and the pandemic is over. Direct payments to all Americans during this time will incentivize people to work and collect extra money, but also allow many others (especially high-risk individuals and their cohabitants) the temporary safety to hold out and survive the pandemic without going bankrupt.

The second wave is already here, and is likely to get worse over the next 4 or 5 months. A market crash is coming, too. We are far from done with stimulus talks right now.

    9. The office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts lists your party affiliation as Healthcare Environment Stability.  Can you elaborate about that organization, such as when did it originate, for which offices is it fielding candidates, and in which states is it active?

Technically that’s a political designation, not a party affiliation. I am, and have always been, an independent voter. I invented the designation, and am currently the only individual running with it. Healthcare, Environment, and Stability would be my priorities as a congressman.

Healthcare because we are in the early stages of a global coronavirus pandemic and we need a single-payer healthcare system to cover all Americans, and to drive research for the COVID-19 vaccine and other illnesses.

Environment because we are in the early stages of total environmental collapse, and we must address our unsustainable consumption and pollution levels.

Stability is a broader term, and this term indirectly addresses the military industrial complex, foreign relations, criminal justice, the economy, national trust, supporting our intelligence agencies, pandemic relief, stopping the climate-motivated collapse, and all the related national security issues that intersect to keep Americans safe.

    10. What do you think a politically unaffiliated observer, who is reasonably aware of the political habits of voters in the Eighth Congressional District, who is familiar with Rep. Lynch’s position on various matters, and who has also become acquainted with your platform would estimate as the likelihood, on a scale of 0 to 100 – with 0 meaning you have no chance and 100 meaning you are certainly going to win – of you prevailing in this contest?

It’s probably on the lower end, but I’m not going to put a number on it. It’s no secret that well-funded incumbents tend to do better in elections.

This race does have a dynamic unlike any other congressional election this year: one independent versus one major-party candidate. No Republicans or third party candidates are in this race, and I believe the results will surpass expectations and surprise observers.

 

[Editor’s note: To learn more about Jonathan Lott’s campaign, please visit www.lott2020.com.]