People were always amazed he could get elected after being exposed as corrupt, convicted of crimes, etc. "How does he do that?" Berry used an interesting mix of racial and economic politics. For the racial part, he convinced his constituents, sometimes in not very subtle ways, that he was the only thing standing between them and the white man, and the white man would take way all they had gained if they did not elect Berry to protect them. The economic part was a simple combination of patronage jobs and government contracts. The funny part of this is that he was not being entirely dishonest. The people he represented were poor and black, many of them relegated to a permanent underclass in a system that depended on being served by a permanent underclass. So there was some justification for what Berry did, even though it seemed divisive at the least, outrageous at the worst.
When candidates start exploring racial politics, they need to be careful. Most constituencies are not like Marion Berry's, and they don't benefit from using race as a wedge issue. Having all the black or Latino voters on your side is a good thing, but not if you have to alienate non-minority (white) voters by relentlessly hammering on the theme that there is only one candidate who can claim a legitimate lock on black voters, Latino voters, etc. Of course, minority voters may feel taken for granted if they hear too much of this. There is a fine line here, and I can't tell you where it is, and it's probably different for different people.
= new reply since forum marked as read
