Where Do You Stand?
In late 1948, Rufus Miles, a supervisor in the Bureau of the Budget in the Truman Administration, was approached by one of his budget examiners who sought help with a dilemma. The employee liked his job but had been offered a position at higher pay by one of the agencies whose budget he examined. The employee had been critical of that agency’s budget submissions in the past and said he preferred not to take the offered job. The dilemma was that he needed more income to support his family. Could he get a raise where he was? Miles said that was not possible and told his examiner he would need to decide what to do. The employee accepted the job offer. Miles then commented to an associate: “Just watch! Within three or four months he will be as critical of the Bureau of the Budget and as defensive of his agency as he had been the opposite within the Bureau.”
Before we return to Miles’s story, read this scenario:
A political party out of power in Congress campaigned in recent elections that they would end “out of control” spending of the current Congress. Voters propelled them into the majority yet their first focus passing several new multi-billion dollar programs. Their voters defend these actions. The losing political power’s supporters, who previously urged passage of major increased spending when they were in control howl at the “hypocrisy” of the new majority party.
It’s not uncommon to see such a double standard in politics. Rufus Miles’s story helps explain why. His prediction of the employee’s behavior came true. Reflecting on it he coined “Miles’ Law” defined as “where you stand depends on where you sit.” Human psychology leads us to see things the way we want to see them - from a point of view that is to our advantage. Miles’s former budget examiner could stick to his belief that his new agency skews its budget estimates, yet this would be stressful, displease his new boss and jeopardize his job. So it’s not surprising that he began to see the situation from his new agency’s point of view.
Other examples are not hard to find. Kathy Gillroy from Villa Park, Illinois crusaded against gambling but then won $25,000 in a gambling café. She decided it was "God showing his grace on me" for her anti-gambling work and accepted the money. A husband complains about credit card debt that seems increasingly hard to pay but plunks down a huge sum for a designer watch. Young parents support school bond issues but when retired oppose them because their kids are now adults.
Rationalization – sometimes labeled as the “self-serving bias” - is clearly at work in explaining Miles’ Law. It may seem a minor issue in cases such as Kathy Gilroy, yet it can be dangerous for democracy. Some justify the actions of favored political party as essential to correct major mistakes of the past. The danger is that what is viewed as acceptable behavior now sets a precedent for what will be “justified” in the future – including by a political party we don’t like. ‘After all,’ the reasoning will go, ‘if it was OK for them then, it’s OK for us now.’
Showing he understands this, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) recently criticized Federal Communications Chairman Brendan Carr for threatening to revoke the media licenses of broadcast stations the Trump Administration deems offensive in the wake of the murder of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk. Cruz argued that such a precedent could be used to silence conservatives when a Democrat gains the presidency. “They will silence us. They will use this power . . . and that is dangerous.”
If the nation’s democratic future is guided only by “where you stand depends on where you sit” it cuts loose the anchor of Constitutional principles and casts democracy adrift, a floating ship of state willing to navigate to any port those in power construct.
One antidote to Miles’ Law is the ability to see things from a perspective other than your own. Some people can do this unaided but many need help to overcome the power of the emotional attachment to where they sit. One common approach is finding a way to question your thinking, such as using a trusted partner, friend or work colleague whose views you can learn from or consulting respectable sources you would normally bypass. Another approach is to “reframe” the issue. If you’re a Democrat, ask how you would feel if you were a Republican. You can also stay alert to the danger of moral/self-licensing in which you accept you’re about to do something you previously opposed but justify it because “after all, I’m basically a good person.” Still further, you can ask yourself “what problems, negative consequences and unanticipated side effects might come from my thinking this way?” Kathy Gilroy could easily have lost respect among her anti-gambling friends and advocates.
Rufus Miles’s employee’s change of heart illuminates something anchored in human psychology. Miles’ Law, to be sure, can be rather benign – but not always.
Photo Credit: pixabay.com
(If you do not currently subscribe to thinkanew.org and wish to receive future ad-free posts, send an email with the word SUBSCRIBE to responsibleleadr@gmail.com)
