Politics Archives

The Western Fall Revisited Pt 1: My 2016 Reflections in the Light of 2025’s Multipolar Reality

7 hours ago By cumeadi

When I first wrote about the concept of a “Western Fall” back in 2016, I was diagnosing what I saw as a period of profound internal challenge brewing within Western nations. My analysis then pointed to the societal friction from rapid social liberalization clashing with traditional values, the corrosive effects of widening income inequality, and the seismic disruptions brought by globalization and technology. These, I argued, were key drivers of a growing popular disenchantment that could lead to a potential decline in the West’s outward influence.

Looking back from our vantage point in mid-2025, it’s striking how those internal recalibrations have not only deepened but have also acted as significant catalysts on the global stage. The internal stresses I identified have, as I suspected they might, contributed to accelerating the transition from a post-Cold War order—often perceived (perhaps too simplistically) as one of Western or unipolar dominance—towards a genuinely multipolar global landscape. This new era, as it has unfolded, is indeed defined by multiple, assertive centers of power, more fluid and often transactional alliances, and a far more contested and less predictable international stage. Events since 2016, such as the “America First” posture of a US administration, the protracted unfolding of Brexit, the fragmented global responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the war in Ukraine—which has paradoxically both unified certain Western elements while also starkly highlighting the independent calculus of other major global players—have all underscored the trajectory I was beginning to trace.

The manifestations of this shifting global power dynamic have become even clearer than I might have anticipated. The rise of assertive non-Western powers, which I was tracking, has solidified. China, despite its own evolving economic narrative, has decisively moved to a more pronounced global presence. Its Belt and Road Initiative, while adapted in response to critiques around debt and sustainability (a concern that has certainly been borne out in several instances post-2017), continues to be a significant vector of influence. This is alongside its undiminished military modernization and formidable push in critical technological domains like AI. India, whose economic resilience I noted, has truly championed its “strategic autonomy.” Its robust GDP growth, even through global slowdowns, and its nuanced foreign policy—balancing relationships with the US, Russia, and China, particularly evident in its stance on the Ukraine conflict—confirm its role as a pivotal independent force. I also observed the growing independence of regional powers like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE; today, their diversified partnerships and assertive national visions are undeniable. The expansion of BRICS+ in 2024, incorporating nations like Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, was a landmark I couldn’t have precisely predicted in detail, but the underlying aspiration it represents—a Global South seeking greater voice and alternative platforms—aligns with the systemic shifts I was exploring. This bloc now encompassing nearly half the world’s population and over a third of global GDP is a stark testament to that diffusion of power.

The stress on traditional Western alliances and institutions, a concern in 2016, has continued. Transatlantic relations, while currently showing some renewed cohesion in the face of specific threats, have undeniably been tested by periods of significant divergence on trade, security burden-sharing, and overarching strategic priorities. Multilateral bodies, as I feared, often struggle for efficacy. The UN Security Council frequently finds itself deadlocked, and the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism, particularly its Appellate Body, has been critically undermined since late 2019. In this context, the rise of “minilateral” groupings like the Quad and AUKUS makes sense as more agile, issue-focused arrangements. The intensification of competition in new arenas is another area where the trends have sharpened. The race for technological supremacy in AI and semiconductors has evolved into a major geostrategic fault line, clearly visible in the US export controls targeting China’s tech advancement and Beijing’s equally determined drive for self-reliance. The “battle of narratives” and the focus on securing critical resources through policies like “friend-shoring” are all facets of this new competitive landscape I was beginning to outline.

The characteristics of this emerging multipolar order also align with my earlier thinking, perhaps with even greater intensity. The increased volatility is palpable. Global military expenditure reaching a record $2.718 trillion in 2024, as reported by SIPRI, reflects a world increasingly reliant on “hard” geopolitics. The conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East are grim affirmations of this. Diplomacy, as I suspected, often appears more overtly transactional, with immediate national interests frequently superseding long-term, value-based alliances. The “hedging” phenomenon, which I was observing among states wishing to avoid rigid alignments, is now a mainstream strategy for many nations, particularly in Southeast Asia and the Gulf, as they navigate the complex pulls of competing major powers.

The implications for addressing our shared global challenges—a core concern of my 2016 piece regarding isolationism—are perhaps the most sobering aspect to revisit. Effective climate action, for instance, is demonstrably complicated by geopolitical rivalry. The US-China dynamic, critical to any global climate solution, has at times created a “governance vacuum,” as The Diplomat recently noted, potentially fracturing efforts and diverting vital resources towards military rather than green investments. The COVID-19 pandemic provided a painful lesson in how “vaccine nationalism” can hamper global health security. Economic stability, too, is increasingly vulnerable to trade fragmentation and strategic “decoupling,” which can disproportionately impact developing nations. And the erosion of the arms control architecture, with treaties like New START facing expiry without a clear successor, brings the specter of a renewed nuclear arms race into sharper, more alarming focus.

Reflecting on my “Western Fall” thesis from 2016, it seems less about an absolute, terminal decline of the West and more about a profound, ongoing recalibration of its relative power and influence in a world where other poles are not just rising but are now firmly established. This “new normal,” as I termed it then, is indeed dynamic and intensely contested. The challenge for Western nations, as I saw it, was to adapt. That adaptation now requires an even deeper acknowledgment of a diffused power landscape, a greater emphasis on internal cohesion to ensure credible external engagement, and perhaps a re-envisioning of “leadership” away from unilateral direction towards facilitation and broad coalition-building. For the rising powers, their enhanced stature brings the undeniable opportunity to reshape global norms, but also the critical responsibility to contribute constructively to global public goods.

The risk of a “G-Zero” world, as analysts like Ian Bremmer now describe it—an era lacking clear global leadership, potentially leading to greater instability—is a starker possibility than perhaps even I fully grasped in 2016. The “deliberate steering” I called for then remains an urgent imperative. The political systems are indeed sorting themselves out, as I believed they would, but the turbulence of this process underscores the enduring need for foresight, resilience, and a pragmatic commitment to finding common ground in an undeniably fractured, yet interconnected, world. My reflections then were a snapshot; the unfolding reality continues to be a complex, challenging, and ever-evolving picture.

Politics

Leadership Lessons from the 45th President: A Groundbreaking Analysis of Executive Excellence

5 months ago By cumeadi

In an era where Harvard Business Review champions emotional intelligence and servant leadership, one man dared to ask: “What if we did the exact opposite?” Here’s an evidence-based analysis of revolutionary leadership principles that have redefined success in ways no business school could have predicted.

The Power of Unwavering Self-Belief

Traditional wisdom suggests leaders should admit mistakes and show vulnerability. However, as demonstrated by statements like “I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth,” the key to modern leadership might be achieving a level of confidence so high it becomes statistically impossible. When you truly believe you’re the best at everything – from military strategy to infrastructure (“I understand bridges, nobody understands them better than me”) – reality often finds it easier to adjust than argue.

Consider the psychological advantages: when you declare “I have one of the greatest memories of all time” while simultaneously not recalling key events, you’re not contradicting yourself – you’re demonstrating advanced cognitive flexibility. This approach suggests that memory, like success, is more about conviction than accuracy.

The data speaks for itself: In situations where Trump claimed “Nobody knows more about [subject] than me,” success was achieved approximately 100% of the time, assuming you define success as having made the claim successfully. This revolutionary metric redefines traditional performance measurement.

Strategic Communication and Message Control

While most leaders waste time crafting nuanced messages, true innovation lies in the art of repetition. Consider this masterclass in executive communication: “This is a tremendous success. Everyone’s saying it. Tremendous. All the experts, they’re saying ‘Sir, this is the most tremendous success we’ve ever seen.’ Tremendous.” Notice how the message remains crystal clear despite containing absolutely no specific information. That’s efficiency.

The “Sir” story format deserves particular study. By prefacing statements with “Sir, they said to me,” you create instant credibility. After all, who calls someone “Sir” except in situations of profound respect or at Starbucks when they’ve misspelled your name?

Advanced practitioners will note the effective use of invisible experts – “many people are saying,” “everybody knows,” and “all the top people.” These phantom authorities provide unlimited validation without the messiness of actual expert opinions. It’s quantum leadership: the experts exist in a superposition of all possible states until someone tries to find them.

Negotiation Through Chaos Theory

Traditional negotiation experts recommend the “win-win” approach. But what if you could achieve such a level of unpredictability that your opponents spend more time decoding your covfefe than negotiating? As demonstrated in countless international dealings, declaring “We’re going to win so much, you’ll get tired of winning” creates a quantum state where success and failure become simultaneously possible until someone observes the stock market.

The real innovation here is the “Art of the Threat.” Traditional negotiating focuses on finding common ground. Instead, try threatening to walk away approximately 17 times per hour. When you say “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters,” you’re not making a threat – you’re establishing negotiating leverage through theoretical physics.

Remember: In high-stakes negotiations, it’s crucial to maintain that you’re “like, really smart” and a “very stable genius.” This creates what negotiation theorists call the “Emperor’s New Clothes Effect,” where everyone else in the room becomes too confused to continue normal bargaining processes.

The Art of Reality Engineering

“What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” This isn’t just a quote – it’s a fundamental principle of modern leadership. When faced with unfavorable facts, simply create your own. Did your inauguration crowd look small? That’s because the photographs were taken by cameras with Democratic biases. Weather map doesn’t match your prediction? Nothing a Sharpie can’t fix.

Advanced reality engineering requires mastery of the “Many People Are Saying” technique. Did you hear something from a questionable source? Simply attribute it to “many people.” These people exist in the same quantum realm as the experts who keep calling you “Sir” – a theoretical space where verification and reality maintain a respectful distance from each other.

The true genius lies in creating alternative success metrics. If conventional measurements don’t support your narrative, simply invent new ones. GDP looking weak? Focus on the “happiness index” of people who attend your rallies. Approval ratings down? Question the fundamental nature of numbers themselves.

Crisis Management Through Alternative Facts

During any crisis, leaders typically rely on experts. However, revolutionary thinking suggests that experts are just people who limit themselves by knowing too much about a subject. When Trump suggested exploring the internal application of UV light and disinfectants, he demonstrated how unencumbered thinking can generate solutions that no medical professional would ever consider – for various reasons.

The real innovation here is what we’ll call the “Preemptive Victory Declaration” strategy. Traditional crisis management suggests waiting until a crisis is resolved before declaring victory. But why wait? By declaring “We have it totally under control” at the earliest possible moment, you create a temporal paradox where the crisis simultaneously exists and doesn’t exist.

Consider this advanced application: When faced with the pandemic, most leaders foolishly waited for data. Instead, Trump demonstrated that by declaring “It’s going to disappear, like a miracle,” you create a self-fulfilling prophecy – it just might take several years to self-fulfill. Remember: Time is relative, especially in crisis communications.

Key learning: When experts present troubling data, remind everyone that you have “a natural ability” for their field of study. Your gut feelings, especially after a Diet Coke and two scoops of ice cream, supersede decades of scientific research.

Market Positioning Through Selective Reality

Why adapt to market realities when you can create your own? When Trump declared his net worth changes based on his feelings, he wasn’t describing financial volatility – he was demonstrating quantum economics. Your company isn’t failing; it’s pursuing alternative success metrics that traditional accounting is too rigid to recognize.

Advanced practitioners will note the brilliance of the “Many Properties” technique. When Trump claimed to own many properties in St. Petersburg, and then later clarified he meant Florida, not Russia, he wasn’t contradicting himself – he was demonstrating the quantum superposition of real estate. A property, like Schrödinger’s cat, can exist in multiple locations until someone checks the deed.

Consider the revolutionary approach to brand valuation: “My brand alone is worth $5 billion.” Traditional accountants might question this number, but they’re trapped in the old paradigm where numbers mean specific things. In the new leadership paradigm, numbers are more like jazz – it’s the notes you don’t count that matter.

The Art of Social Media Dominance

Modern leadership requires mastering the art of digital warfare. When Trump tweeted “covfefe,” lesser leaders would have admitted to a typo. Instead, he demonstrated advanced memetic warfare by letting the world wonder if they were the ones who didn’t understand language.

The key principle here is “Strategic Caps Lock Deployment.” As demonstrated in countless tweets, RANDOM CAPITALIZATION creates EMPHASIS and AUTHORITY. It’s not shouting – it’s selective emphasis for words that deserve to break free from the tyranny of conventional grammar.

Remember: “The FAKE NEWS media is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!” This isn’t just a statement – it’s a masterclass in enemy acquisition. Why have small enemies when you can have institutional ones?

Conclusion: The Future of Leadership

These revolutionary principles suggest that the key to modern leadership isn’t learning – it’s unlearning everything you thought you knew. Success isn’t about what you actually achieve; it’s about maintaining such an impenetrable reality distortion field that achievement becomes a matter of perspective.

Consider this final wisdom: When Trump said, “I could tell you about it, but then I’d have to kill you,” about mundane policy details, he wasn’t making a tired joke – he was demonstrating the ultimate leadership principle: The best information is the information you never actually provide.

Remember: “I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.” In the end, isn’t that what leadership is all about?

Advanced Note: Results may vary. Side effects may include bankruptcy, legal challenges, spontaneous reality restructuring, and sudden urges to build walls around things. Consult your ego before attempting these techniques. If your reality distortion field lasts more than four hours, consult a physician or a fact-checker immediately.

#MentalNote · Education · Politics

The Psychology of Cults

4 years ago By cumeadi

Like most of you, I watched the assault on the Capitol Building with disgust and sadness. For starters, the Capitol Building, when I lived in DC, was right down the street from my apartment. I could feel the enormity of the building every time that I passed it. You see, the Capitol Building is way more than just a building where the US Legislators pass laws. It’s a symbol of one of the three pillars of our government. It’s a standing testament to an enduring idea crafted by our forefathers and passed on from generation to generation.

While we all can agree on some of the main drivers that led to what we saw last week, there’s an underlying belief system / mental state that allowed people to be driven to insurrection. I’m going all the way back to my undergrad for this analysis… One of the toughest but most satisfying classes I’ve ever taken – Advanced Political Theory.

During the class, we studied less about politics and more about psychology, geography, sociology, and history. My professor loved using the analogy of cooking. “Most of your education has been focused on the meal, but if you want to become a chef that makes these meals, you have to respect the ingredients and techniques that put the food on the table.” he’d say. It felt like a defense against the dark arts class… for the Harry Potter fans out there.

We spent a lot of time talking about the psychology of the electorate and what drives people into a tribe-like mentality. We also spent time discussing how tribes can sometimes resemble cults. I had to dig to find my notes but my professor mentioned five truths we should be aware of when structuring in and out-groups and how they can easily turn into cults. For our use, we should be aware of these five truths if we are going to repair The United States and come out better on the other side of this.

* I’m in no way excusing what extreme Trump supporters are doing. I’m just highlighting five truths we should think about if we want to break people free of cults. Also, this isn’t just a US problem. “Radicalization” can happen within religion, politics, socially, etc. These truths tend to hold in all areas.

Life is inherently comfortable and human being’s existence (specifically in the west) is focused on chasing comfort. Cults/Tribes provide comfort in an uncertain world. The world has changed so quickly in such a short time due to globalization, liberalization, and economic shifts. People are being left behind in this changing world and that can be leveraged to drive discomfort. Think about the rhetoric that has been used and what a lot of supporters mention. “Trump hears us.” “We feel forgotten but we now feel seen” Being listened to and remembered creates a level of comfort that can be manipulated if it’s not coming with the best intentions.
Democrats vs Republicans created an in and out-group which that leads to us vs them framing. For some reason, our political affiliation has become one of the most salient parts of our identity, specifically for those who find themselves on the MAGA side of the spectrum. My hypothesis is social media has stripped away location, skin color, economic background and its become the great equalizer for the delivery of ideas. This isn’t to say that these attributes aren’t there, based on social saliency theory, specific attributes just rise to the top. As a result, it’s easier for people to create their own reality because they are talking with people that view their life through the same lens which also reinforces the idea of being heard and a sense of comfort.
Cults tend to deal in absolutes. They provide an absolute way of looking at the world which helps create a more stable foundation. Think about it this way, the world is super complicated with many moving pieces. Some would say it’s even more complicated with the rapid change we’ve seen in the last twenty years. Cults tend to abstract complexity and provide simple explanations of why things are the way they are. This is normally easier to digest and manage for the person who wants to sort through an ever-changing reality. Now abstracting complexities is not all that bad but the process tends to make irrational jumps in logic and truth to create a more simple reality. This is why conspiracy theories and “fake news” is so essential to an absolute perspective. Conspiracy theories provide the framework for abstracted complexities and the fake news defense serves as a moat for any facts that may refute the conspiracy theories and the larger abstracted truth.
Cult leaders are black belts in mind control. Let’s be frank. Trump is a master seller. He used this skill to catapult himself into the real estate industry and several of his other ventures. He leveraged his master skill to get the right people to vote for him back in 2016 and then brought out even more people in 2020. By reinforcing everything we’ve mentioned above, he’s used tactics like brainwashing (reinforcing lies by constantly saying them) and driving paranoia throughout his ranks. Trump did a great job of convincing people that the other (Everyone against him) and/or the government is out to get them, but his rallies and his group can provide safety. Once someone concludes that the “other” and country cannot keep them safe, they begin to worship and put all of their faith in the person who provides comfort and protection.
Cults tend to focus on total control and less on optionality. If you’re controlling a person’s reality, allegiances, perspectives, and mobility, you might be leading a cult. Seems like control was an under-current for MAGA and a lot of Trump rhetoric. As a result, a subgroup of people answered the call to storm the Capitol Building in DC and other legislative buildings throughout the United States.

Once again, this isn’t to excuse. To use my professor’s analogy, we need to understand the key ingredients that led to the food we’re forced to serve. Even in this explanation, I’m sure you can see some areas where the private sector and the US government can drive reform to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

Education · Leadership · Politics

The Montgomery Bus Boycotts: Evaluating Social Change With A Change Management Framework

5 years ago By cumeadi

While I was in business school, I wrote this analysis on the Montgomery Bus Boycotts for our Change Management class. After reading it again, I thought it was really pertinent to thinking sustainability of social movements in the age of #BLM #ENDSARS and similar movements all throughout the world.

Introduction

The Montgomery Bus Boycott was one of the largest and longest mobilizations of a community in the history of the civil rights movement. It set the standard for how major players like Martin Luther King, the NAACP and other organizations would mobilize, and effectively communicate and coordinate civil disobedience protest strategies all across the country. However, there are many questions and underlying topics that surround the Montgomery Bus Boycotts. Why Rosa Parks? What was the Montgomery Bus Boycotts looking to achieve? Was the Montgomery Bus Boycotts successful? In the following essay, I will explore many of these questions through the lens of change management theory.

Background

Late in the afternoon of Thursday, December 1st, 1955, Rosa Parks leaves work at the Montgomery Fair department store and boards a bus home. The bus fills up. A white man boards — but with no seats available he has to stand in the aisle. The bus driver orders the four front-most Blacks to surrender their seats so he can sit. Mrs. Parks recalls:

At his first request, didn’t any of us move. Then he spoke again and said, “You’d better make it light on yourselves and let me have those seats.” … When the [other] three people … stood up and moved into the aisle, I remained where I was. When the driver saw that I was still sitting there, he asked if I was going to stand up. I told him, no, I wasn’t. He said, “Well, if you don’t stand up, I’m going to have you arrested.” I told him to go on and have me arrested. He got off the bus and came back shortly. A few minutes later, two policemen got on the bus, and they approached me and asked if the driver had asked me to stand up, and I said yes, and they wanted to know why I didn’t. I told them I didn’t think I should have to stand up. After I had paid my fare and occupied a seat, I didn’t think I should have to give it up. They placed me under arrest then and had me to get in the police car, and I was taken to jail… — Rosa Parks. [1]

Rosa parks is then taken to jail and through a network of well connected friends, her bail is paid and the news of her arrest spreads like wildfire throughout the Montgomery community.

That night, students from the college nearby started making fliers that called for a one day bus boycott the next Monday. Friends of Rosa Parks start to build coalitions and develop the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) to lead the charge against Montgomery. Nixon, Rosa Parks friend and community leader within the NAACP, appoint a young pastor, Martin Luther King, as head MIA because he’s a young outsider who is not entrenched in the politics of the church establishment.

On Monday, December 5^th, 1955 the bus boycott began. People walked to work, carpooled where they could and took taxis. That same day, Rosa Parks was charged with violating the segregation law and faced a $14 dollar fine. Due to the verdict and a successful one day boycott, the leadership decided to continue the boycott. For the next year, MIA coordinated with Montgomery community organizations to sustain the bus boycott through facilitating carpool routes, leveraging taxi services and coordinating other resistance strategies. When Montgomery didn’t change their segregation policy, lawyers associated with the MIA and NAACP chose to file a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Montgomery segregation laws.

In June 1956, the federal court in Montgomery ruled in Browder v. Gayle that Alabama’s bus segregation laws, both city and state, violated the Fourteenth Amendment and were unconstitutional. The U.S supreme court upheld the decision later that year. In December, after an estimated $250,000 in lost bus revenue and millions in lost tax revenue and retail, the Montgomery Bus Boycott finally came to an end.

Analysis

As a result of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, civil rights leaders are finally given a tangible model on how to facilitate change in society. While many of the concepts of nonviolence and civil disobedience are based in the teachings of Gandhi and Jesus Christ, there was no real macro model which mobilized institutions and coordinated people in the way that would amount to change. Ultimately, change in the civil rights movement was three fold. For the sake of simplicity, I’ll focus particularly on the Montgomery Bus Boycott. The three major changes include

Transition from individual to community action
Economic concept of equality
Change in the laws that perpetuated segregation

Transition from individual to community action

Rosa Parks wasn’t the first person to be arrested for not giving up their seat on a bus in Montgomery. Based on our reading in The Power of Habit, there are three things that lead to the full out bus boycott.

“A movement starts because of the social habits of friendship and the strong ties between

close acquaintances. It grows because of the habits of a community, and the weak ties that hold neighborhoods and clans together. And it endures because a movements’ leaders give participants new habits that create a fresh sense of identity and a feeling of ownership.” -Power of Habit pg 155

Duhigg argues that the reason Rosa Parks sparks the Montgomery Bus Boycotts is because of her close varied connections throughout the community of Montgomery. She has a diverse group of close friends that vary in profession, social status and interests. Once they hear about how their friend had been arrested, they are more likely to act and bring other close friends to action.

We see this play out in how easily accessible organizations like the NAACP, college professors and church members became throughout her story. This doesn’t play out the same way for others who were arrested. The power of Rosa Parks network galvanizes friends to feel directly offended as if they were the ones that were arrested. “If it happened to Rosa, it could happen to us.” This energy is leveraged to facilitate the actions steps that mobilize the whole community for the boycott.

Another spark that helps facilitate larger community action is the emergence of the Montgomery Improvement Association and of Martin Luther King’s leadership. Unless E.D Nixon was reading change management strategy 20 years into the future, he was ahead of his time when he suggested that Martin Luther King head the newly formed Montgomery Improvement Association. There were three very important characteristics that Martin Luther King possessed that made him an ideal candidate. Most importantly, he was a new member of the Montgomery community that was just starting to establish his identity and his church. He was younger than most of the ministers, so he had the energy and electric emotion to lead a group of people. Lastly, he was minister, which gave him the language to speak to a mass audience that was predominately Christian in belief.

Martin Luther King uses his newly appointed role to rally people around the concepts of civil disobedience and brotherhood. He unites people by consolidating the message and making it appeal to everyone. While MLK is effectively communicating for the bus boycott, MIA is developing the infrastructure to support the logistics for a yearlong battle. MLK brings people together through integrating non-violence into Christian doctrine and ties a people to a larger cause than themselves. The MIA creates new habit for the Black community in Montgomery that include walking to work, carpooling and taxi services. The organization and higher calling are what ultimately sustains the Montgomery bus boycotts for a year.

Economic concept of equality

The Montgomery Bus Boycott was one of the largest mobilizations of a particular group in history of the United States. While there was segregation was at the center of the Montgomery bus boycotts, there was a more basic fundamental that one person’s 10 cents are worth the same amount as the next persons. The Black population in Montgomery was about 40,000 people. Blacks represented more than 75% of the ridership on the bus system. Imagine losing almost 75% of your ridership for a year. For a long time, there was a racial hierarchy/value given to money from whites versus blacks. The bus boycott was the first major example of how much economic power a community could have if they came together. Anyone with that large of a purchasing power cannot be ignored. Thurgood Marshall has been quoted saying that the Montgomery bus boycotts were won through the courts and not through the boycott in which he is technically correct. However, the hearts, minds and pockets of merchants, drivers and administration had already been pushed to the edge. The financial implications of the boycott were too enormous not to ignore but ultimately, for the first time, people became aware of how much spending power the black community had. The black community saw this as well and quickly replicated similar strategies all around the country.

Change in the laws that perpetuated segregation

Social norms play a significant role in determining legal structures. In the common law perspective, most laws are derived out of a set of common norms (core Christian values) Social norms that are normally entrenched in society for an extended period of time eventually convert into legal frameworks to sustain the social norms past societal changes. When Black leaders in Montgomery county started discourse to prepare a legal case against the city of Montgomery and Alabama segregation laws, they were battling a legacy of social hierarchy, through and policies were relics of southern society pre- civil war. These laws were put in place to institutionalize a mindset that decreased the rights of blacks positioned whites as the hegemonic power in the south. Ultimately, this was the long term, sustainable change that the Black community in Montgomery, AL mobilized and fought to reach.

Montgomery Bus Boycott through a change management perspective

After research on the Montgomery Bus Boycott and applying some of the change management theories we’ve learned in class, I found that the Montgomery bus boycott is not only an exact fit within the Kotter model, but a more integrated application. In this next section, I will break down the Kotter model and explain for each section how the Montgomery bus boycott applies.

Establish a sense of urgency

Upon Rosa Parks arrest, her mother quickly calls all of her friends and from there the sense of urgency is born. Imagine hearing that one of your friends was in jail for a crime that might have landed you in jail as well. Many of Rosa Parks friends mobilize the resources and people needed to not only get her out of jail but facilitate the boycott. This is an example of perfect place and perfect timing. Civil rights leaders are more equipped to establish a sense of urgency here because of Rosa Parks role in the community. She is very connected and helps to bring a diverse group of people together that normally wouldn’t be in the same group at any other time. By leveraging a perfect opportunity, the sense of urgency is timing. Its an opportunity to get back at Montgomery bus system for disrespecting “one of our own” .

Create a Guiding Coalition

During the development of the Montgomery Improvement Association, Nixon pushes for Martin Luther King to be the face, leader, and voice of the organization, thus making him the head leader of the Montgomery bus boycott. The creation of the Montgomery Improvement Association is the first step in building a guiding coalition, but the most important move was placing Martin Luther King as head of the organization. As I mentioned previously, MLK’s position in the community, in all facets, makes him an ideal candidate to lead the Montgomery Improvement Association. He’s an outsider, young and a minister. These three characteristics play an intricate role in his ability to reach the masses and made him one of the most effective leaders in the civil rights era.

Develop a Vision and a Strategy

The MIA was the operational tool of the Montgomery bus boycott. They developed a message and strategy that MLK stated:

“I want it to be known that we’re going to work with grim and bold determination – to gain justice on the buses in this city. And we are not wrong. We are not wrong in what we are doing. If we are wrong – the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong. If we are wrong – God Almighty is wrong! And, we are determined here in Montgomery to work and fight until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream!” [3]

MIA developed a goal that eventually stalled negotiations they were:

Treat Negroes with greater courtesy
Hire Negro drivers for Negro routes
Desegregate bus seating.

The overall strategy was two prong. Blacks would boycott the bus system until demands were met and Black leaders would look for ways to challenge the legality of the policy in higher courts.

Communicate the Change Vision

I believe that this is the true differentiator that takes the Montgomery bus boycott and makes it sustainable. It all goes back to the selection of Martin Luther King as the head of MIA. There were major pieces of social change entangled in the boycott but King’s knowledge in Christianity and his ability to mold the conversation and the message makes it palpable and translatable to audiences outside of the black community. Even within the black community in the south, the church is the cornerstone of society and appeals to the masses. King takes many of the ideals and messaging and integrates in into his sermons and applies scripture as arguments for equality. It’s the equivalent to some of gummy vitamins, masked in something you know and enjoy but inside is something that’s really good for your body. In my opinion, this is what gives the civil right movement the legs it needs to be replicable and appeal to those that are who are not black but share Christian values.

Empower Broad Based Action

Montgomery Improvement Association was the central hub of logistics during the early periods of the Montgomery bus boycotts. However, the boycott is sustained once people start taking ownership and start to own that they are individually boycotting the bus system. This is when you start to see weekly block meetings setting up logistics for how people will get to work, and other people start to move into management/leadership roles within the organization. The ultimate goal of empowering broad-based action is that the change agent doesn’t have to be the person enacting or facilitating the change vision and strategy. MIA achieved this by getting buy in early in the process and through the effective messaging by Martin Luther King that pressed a message of long-term benefit and endurance. (Most of the time, embalmed in Christian doctrine.)

Plan and Generate Short-Term Wins

The most effective short-term win was the one-day boycott developed by MIA and Black leaders. Once people saw how feasible it could be to continue the boycott, it almost seemed logical to continue until demands were met. This is also another interesting step that was altered due to the selection of MLK. As a minister in Christianity, it is easy to preach postponing immediate gain for long term wins as long as people are constantly aware of the long-term goal. I also believe that the belief in delayed gratification is what also sustained the Montgomery bus boycott for as long as it did. There were still short-term victories, but MIA and MLK did a great job of celebrating the small victories that did occur and managing expectations for the long term.

Consolidate Wins and Produce More Change

For all intents and purposes, the black community in Montgomery was winning the boycott. The bus system was losing thousands of dollars a day, retailers were losing out on income and Montgomery was losing out on tax income. However, in order to truly win and produce the maximum amount of change, MIA negotiated with the city of Montgomery to alter their segregation policies. After stalled negotiations, MIA and the NAACP decided to make a legal case for the unconstitutionality of Montgomery and Alabama’s policies.

Anchor the New Approaches in the Culture

The supreme court ultimately rules that Montgomery and Alabama’s laws are unconstitutional under the 14^th amendment. As previously stated in the paper, laws are social norms that have been agreed upon as the common actions/ policies toward citizens. By challenging and having the segregation laws overturned, the law sets a whole new precedence by which other laws can be exploited and changed. Ultimately, the supreme court ruling ensures the longevity of the essence of the Montgomery bus boycott.

Conclusion

While the Kotter model is a great fit to the Montgomery bus boycott, there are great lessons to be learned from one of the most pivotal boycotts in the history of our country. Most importantly, your change thesis has to be palatable to your champions but eventually has to get through to the enemies of change. MLK was great at taking civil rights arguments and integrating concepts into Christianity. By doing that, it disarms most of the arguments the opposing side uses. It’s important when facilitating change, you pick leaders in the change coalition that speak the language of the masses and effectively know how to communicate a streamlined message. Secondly, momentum is significantly important in establishing a sense of urgency. The effectiveness of Rosa Park’s network is only utilized in the moment. If the boycott started a week after, it wouldn’t have had the same adoption rate. Building of a momentous occasion builds a larger case for the sense of urgency. Lastly, change isn’t just a change in habit or beliefs, but it needs to be founded in policy and governance. The Montgomery bus boycott is successful because it changes the hearts and minds of a majority of the people involved but the defining and sustaining success lies in the policies being declared as unconstitutional. In organizational change management, its important to facilitate change but sometime the best way to facilitate change and sustain it is through policy and governance interventions. The Montgomery bus boycott would serve as model for future civil rights battles all across the country. While certain elements couldn’t be replicated, the core served as a great model for leaders to apply.

Bibliography

Berg, Allison,“Trauma and Testimony in Black Women’s Civil Rights Memoirs: The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Women Who Started It, Warriors Don’t Cry, and From the Mississippi

Boycott. DVD, directed by Clark Johnson. Los Angeles: Home Box Office, Inc., 2001.

Burns, Stewart, ed. Daybreak of Freedom: The Montgomery Bus Boycott. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997.

Duhigg, Charles The Power of Habit Random House LLC, Feb 28, 2012

Eyes on the Prize: Awakenings (1954-1956 ). DVD, directed by Henry Hampton. Boston: Blackside, 1987.

Gray, Fred D. Bus Ride to Justice. Montgomery: Black Belt Press, 1994.

King, Martin Luther, Jr. Stride Toward Freedom. New York: Harper, 1958.

Robinson, Jo Ann Gibson. The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Women Who Started It. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1987.

Thornton, J. Mills III. Dividing Lines. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2002.

History · Politics

Juneteenth

5 years ago By cumeadi

I learned about Juneteenth for the first time in 3rd grade. Ms. Anderson, the student-teacher in my class at the time, read to us about how Major General Gordon Granger landed at Galveston, Texas with news that the war had ended and that the slaves were now free. This was two and a half years after President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. (signed in 1863)

“The people of Texas are informed that in accordance with a Proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired laborer.” – General Order #3

I may have learned about it at an early age, but I didn’t understand the significance of Juneteenth until I moved to Washington DC in 2010 DOE (During Obama’s Era). Juneteenth was celebrated throughout Through my students and the community, I got to see what Juneteenth looks like up close. I got a chance to participate in parades, go to exhibits opened up specifically to celebrate the day, and enjoy cookouts. I may have participated but it didn’t click until a couple of weeks later.

This was also my first fourth of July in the nation’s capital. Of course, there was a ton of stuff to do. I got a chance to visit the monuments, went to a couple of cookouts, and watched fireworks. I also got to listen to President Obama’s 4th of July speech.

He mentioned something always normally mentioned in most 4th of July presidential addresses but it hit differently.

“Two hundred and thirty-four years later, the words are just as bold, just as revolutionary, as they were when they were first pronounced: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all 1 men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (to read the whole speech click here.)

And at that point, I realized what Juneteenth meant. It was more than the celebration of the end of slavery. Juneteenth is the celebration of a promise fulfilled. Part of the quote in Obama’s speech is from the Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

All men… created equal… endowed by their creator… inalienable rights… This is what the founding fathers wrote to King George to justify their need to break away from Great Britain and form their own country. This is the foundation of what drove collective action in the revolutionary war. People fought against an oppressive regime for these inalienable rights.

Sounds familiar? It’s crazy a country that had just shed blood over these inalienable rights would then go and create a 10x more oppressive state for black people. That isn’t living up to its promise if this isn’t for everyone. That’s why June 19th, 1865 is so important. The end of slavery as a state-sanctioned institution in the United States brought us one giant step closer to a more perfect union.

As we can all see, we’ve still got a long way to go. That’s for damn sure. I see all the companies getting the day off and all the celebrations around the country and honestly, it’s great to see. But I wonder, do people get it? Do they understand why Juneteenth is so central to the history of the United States? Do they understand, its way more than a black holiday? This is our history. This is the history of us.