Marion Barry’s intricate path through D.C. history |
Featured Commentary

Marion Barry’s intricate path through D.C. history


Marion Barry received his final call.

In a recent column, I described the four-term mayor as one of Washington’s most enduring political war horses. Noting the release of his book “Mayor for Life: The Incredible Story of Marion Barry, Jr.,” I observed that the 78-year-old Barry, instead of thinking about hanging it up, was telling stories about himself. “These writings are preparation for the next chapter. There’s simply no stopping war horses until the good Lord calls them home.”

It came at 1:46 a.m. on Sunday last.

And with him went an era the likes of which we might never see again. Some will say, “Thank God.” Others, many others, are mourning his passing. But whichever way you come down, admit it: Barry’s life represents a unique and unforgettable period in the city’s history. How could it not?

Marion Barry was a fixed point from which the development of the District as a source of black political empowerment can be traced. He started and starred in it. His was a political melodrama that depicted a city striving for self-determination in a way that the nation could not ignore. Because Barry did it his way.

The political skirmishes, challenges to Capitol Hill’s colonial customs and shattering of old D.C. government hiring traditions were part of the Barry way. He brought color, literally and figuratively, to the upper reaches of city government. And he broke a lot of china along the way.

Barry, while on the path, also answered a lot of calls, including some that many others ignored out of fear and cowardice.

Locally, he was among the first wave of elected officials to take office in the newly minted home-rule government — an uncertain time controlled by congressional skeptics not easily moved to view city independence with sympathy. He responded to a call, most likely heard initially by himself alone, to seek the reins of mayoral power. But calls for him to claim the mayor’s office came three more times from citizens, especially those who believed that Barry knew, respected and spoke for them, and in a language that the city’s power brokers otherwise would not have heard.

He also responded to personal calls — longings, appetites, ambitions and passions — that led him into situations quite painful to watch. And for which he paid a price, over and over.

Marion Barry mastered conditions that would bring down the average person. He delivered blows and took many, too. But he didn’t remain stuck with his problems. He could move on and find an upside to everything.

To recall a story I told in a column once before: During his last term as mayor, and with a financial control board and Congress blocking him at every turn, Barry and I had lunch, at his invitation, at Georgia Brown’s.

For nearly two hours he conducted a tour d’horizon of his life and times as mayor — taking a few shots at The Post’s editorial page for our treatment of his administration — all the while basking in the adoring gaze of restaurant customers. There was nothing like observing Barry in a crowd.

Barry acknowledged that he had become a lightning rod for congressional criticism and that his re-election could lead to a further squeezing of the city’s limited form of home rule. He said he didn’t want to serve under those conditions and signaled that he would not run if his return to office would hurt the city. He didn’t.

Marion Barry bore some heavy costs. He paid for standing against notorious congressional antagonism toward D.C. self-determination. He bore the misery of the slurs, unfair judgments and taunts against a city largely in black hands. He bore the weight of friends who let him down. And he bore himself. There was nothing else like him on our political stage.

Colbert I. King is a columnist for The Washington Post.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.