In the latest skirmishes over the 39th City Council race, things have taken a somewhat bizarre and, to me, unexpected turn.

Recently, one candidate, probably the most conservative in the race, John Heyer, has come under attack from Gatemouth on Room 8, district leader Alan Fleishman, and others for his anti-choice and anti-marriage equality (though, often ignored, pro-civil union) stands. This should have come as no surprise to Heyer and his campaign since the district is overwhelmingly pro-choice and pro-marriage equality and in any circumstance when a candidate holds views distinctly different from that of the majority of voters in the district, that candidate HAS to be ready to address why, despite this difference of ideology, that candidate will still represent the voters in that district.

John Heyer, sadly, did not take this approach. Instead he screamed "anti-Catholic" discrimination (and some of his followers added "anti-Italian") and promptly flounced from attending a major candidates forum hosted by the two main political clubs in the district, Independent Neighborhood Democrats and Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats.

This accusation that pro-choice is anti-Catholic is patently absurd.

Yesterday I asserted that this was out of character for the normally cool-headed Heyer and that he would retreat from that stance to a more reasoned one in no time. And yet his supporters have adopted this hostile stand and have attacked me as, again, anti-Catholic and anti-Italian because I question whether an anti-choice, anti-marriage equality candidate should be endorsed by a liberal club like IND or should represent such a liberal district.

Message to Heyer and his supporters: Disagreement DOES NOT equal discrimination.

I am reminded of an incident in the neighboring 33rd Council race where one candidate, easily the most conservative in the race, Satmar Hasid Isaac Abraham, told the local club CBID that he couldn't attend their meeting because they held their meetings in a day care center in the basement of a church. There was a flood of comments that this seemed unreasonable and hostile from someone who wanted to represent a district that encompasses not just Hasids, but a wide range of people. Again, this is a case where someone with beliefs that are not representative of the majority in the district is challenged to explain how, despite these differences, he can still represent the district.

When someone who is different from the majority runs for office, he or she will always be challenged to defend their ability to represent the district as a whole. Is this challenge appropriate? I would say it is ASSUMING the audience is willing to listen to the defense. The same questions arose when JFK ran for President because he was Catholic. He directly addressed the concerns and convinced a majority of American voters that he COULD represent America. Barack Obama, because he is black, was similarly challenged about his ability to represent a predominantly white, but also multi-ethnic nation. He directly addressed the concerns and was OVERWHELMINGLY elected.

Isaac Abraham and John Heyer both took a different approach. They defined the challenges as discriminatory and attacked those who questioned them. The Isaac Abraham case was more directly comparable to the JFK and Obama case because it was largely personal beliefs being discussed, not individual issues (though those could have come up as well in Abraham's case). In Heyer's case it is less comparable because it was directly issues that were in question, not his Catholicism itself as it was in JKF's case.

Isaac Abraham, from all I am told, is a media hog. It has been postulated that his actions, though based on genuine belief, were designed specifically to create a tsimis and get him media attention. I don't believe this is a good way of building bridges to the community and convincing voters that you can represent them, but at least once he had gotten his media attention, he happily let it all blow over and proceeded to meet the very people he had accused of discrimination not just once, but several times.

John Heyer refused to even come and discuss the issue. He canceled at the last minute his participation in a candidate forum. This is the worst possible reaction because it closes off the chance of actually discussing the issue and trying to convince voters you can still represent them. Instead Heyer has painted himself into a corner by portraying pro-choice as anti-Catholic, and thus telling the majority of voters in the district (pro-choice being the overwhelming majority view) that he CANNOT represent them because he sees their viewpoint as hostile to his deepest beliefs.

I still think Heyer will realize his mistake and try to correct it. That attempt, quite possibly tonight at IND, could be his last chance to try and convince voters that he can represent them rather than view them as hostile to his beliefs. In that sense it is a genuine test of his character: is he a leader or a mere politician? I am curious to see how he handles it.

Fundamentally, as I said, it is absurd to call pro-choice anti-Catholic. Studies have shown that the breakdown of pro-choice vs. anti-choice among Catholics is the same as the breakdown within the general population. Furthermore, it sets up a hostile relationship between religion and society wherein divorce becomes not a breaking of a social contract, but expression of anti-Catholic sentiments. Opposition to beheading of homosexuals is no longer a human rights stand, but rather anti-Islamic bigotry. Serving pork or shrimp in a restaurant is not just a culinary choice, but rather an attack on Judaism.

As to the anti-Italian smear, that is even more absurd. Heyer's ethnicity is not and has never been an issue...for my part I simply thought of him as "American." I have often wondered how many of NYC's Italians have visited Italy even as many times as I have (one wonderful trip) or know as much Italian history as I do. Or, for that matter, Catholic history. I find it a curiously New York identity to identify oneself so strongly for so many generations with a nation you have little contact with. Then again, as a Jew who has visited Israel the same number of times I have visited Italy (I preferred Italy, for the record), I think I can understand such a deep-rooted, if a bit quaintly archaic, identity.

Finally, one defense put forward by Heyer's supporters is that his anti-choice stand is in line with his overall "liberal", Catholic, "pro-life" views which include "anti-war, anti-violence, anti-death penalty and anti-abortion." Fine. I can respect that. Back in the 1980's I expressed the same respect for a Senator in Oregon, Senator Hatfield (Correction: the ill-named Senator Packwood was pro-choice) who held similar views. Hatfield was a Republican. In fact he was, at the time, a pretty typical moderate Republican. So Heyer's own followers back up my assertion that Heyer would make an excellent moderate Republican and that the Republican Party would do well to run candidates like Heyer rather than the fanatical right wingers they are running these days. I would add that there are also anti-choice, conservative Democrats out there. I have supported some of them in places like Indiana. But this isn't Indiana (or even Bay Ridge or the NYC Caribbean community, both of which are socially conservative) and we aren't Republicans at IND or in the district. Hence people's view that Heyer may not be the best person to represent this district or IND. This view is reasonable and requires addressing by Heyer with something more sophisticated and respectful than calling it "anti-Catholic."

Underneath this discussion is really a whole subtext regarding the internal politics of the Independent Neighborhood Democrats and it is this internal divide that really underlies the hostilities that are boiling over. Club civil wars are never pretty, though often entertaining. This is the second major one I have seen at IND and I also saw the tail end of one at CBID. This is the first time, however, where I have seen such a fight revolve around a candidate who held fundamentally different views from the majority of the district and from the stated ideals of the club. I have been told that there were even more dramatic cases of this in the past, but that was before my time. Thing is, usually when there is a fight like this the candidate in question doesn't actively alienate the opposing side but rather keep ties open to the entirety of the club. I recommend Heyer does this. In the unlikely circumstances that Heyer wins the election, he is going to have to mend fences with these same people he is accusing of being anti-Catholic.