The vehicle ahead of me was nothing special. An SUV with Texas plates adorned with Bernie for President and Beto for Senate stickers.
OK, maybe that was a bit unusual. It’s rare to see support for Democratic political candidates in Texas, although that’s been changing a bit recently.
I had plenty of time to think about all this because the SUV was moving slower than molasses.
As I crawled along behind it, my blood boiling, I started to consider the motivations of the driver. For someone seeking to break the political mold in my state, they seemed eager to stick to the rules of the road — particularly when it came to the speed limit.
This prudence might have seemed noble to some. But not me.
I had things to do and places to be. And staying below the posted speed wasn’t helping matters at all.
Did this driver not have the same obligations? Was there no urgency built into their day?
It was hard to tell.
After a few frustrating moments, the road widened. I veered my SUV into the open lane and hit the gas, leaving the liberal-loving driver in the dust.
Adios, I thought. May our paths not cross again.
I should have let this moment go. And yet, I dwelled on it for days.
What was it that so agitated me?
It wasn’t the driver’s politics. As a centrist, I tend not to let that sway me.
It wasn’t even the driver’s behavior. They weren’t swerving or brake-checking me.
No, it was the implication of what the driver was doing that got my goose. It was the notion of the rules reigning supreme that seemed so off-putting.
For while this driver was out there earning their imaginary gold star, I was at risk of getting to my destination late.
And that outcome seemed costlier than a speeding ticket would have been.
Follow the rules.
From our earliest days, we absorb this mantra.
We hear stories about the bad guys who broke the law and ended up in jail. We adhere to warnings not to cheat on board games. We discover that disobeying our parents can send us straight to timeout.
Rule adherence is a central tenet of our society. It stabilizes us. It protects us. It galvanizes us.
The rules have meaning. But they’re not all-encompassing.
Indeed, much of what we adhere to can’t be found in a rule book. Much of what we believe in isn’t within a formal code of law.
Punctuality, respect, and integrity are paramount in our culture. We might not get put in handcuffs for breaking with them. But they still matter.
These concepts are deemed customs. They’re behavioral constructs that we agree to abide by.
Customs and rules generally live in their own bubbles. But occasionally those bubbles overlap.
What happens then? And how do we choose what to follow?
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great man.
And yet, he was also a criminal. Or at least, that’s what the record says.
In 1960, Dr. King was convicted of driving without a license in Georgia. A judge then gave him a four-year prison sentence, to be served maximum-security prison.
Dr. King only served a few days of that sentence. And yet, he would find himself behind bars 28 more times in his abbreviated life.
Dr. King clearly wasn’t proficient at following the rules. And yet, he’s still celebrated for that fact.
You see, the rules Dr. King broke were impractical. They were laws designed to insulate the few, rather than protect the many.
Following those rules might have given Dr. King a clean rap sheet. It might have kept the FBI from ever tailing him. It might have even kept him from getting assassinated.
But adhering to the rules would have denied Black people of their dignity. It would have deprived them of opportunity. It would have barred them from their fair share.
These rights are the markers of common decency and the cornerstones of our democracy. They’ve long been customary among those with a paler skin complexion. And yet, they were systematically kept from Black people for centuries.
So, when it came time for Dr. King to choose between rules and customs, he didn’t flinch. He disobeyed with purpose, in hopes of giving his community the future it deserved.
Fellow Civil Rights activist — and eventual U.S. Congressman — John Lewis called this willful disobedience Good trouble. And Dr. King was a master at it.
Lewis’ description hits on a key point. When rules come into conflict with customs, the customs often win.
This isn’t always the case. We don’t adhere to the Mayan rituals of human sacrifice, for instance.
But when the code of law and the code of society enter the ring, it’s our customs that generally land the knockout blow.
First-world problems.
That’s the derisive term for minor issues we raise a big fuss about.
Dr. King wasn’t dealing with first-world problems when he engaged in the civil rights movement. He was combatting something far more substantial.
But my frustrating journey behind the SUV with the Bernie and Beto stickers? That was first-world problems to the max.
There is no real comparison between Dr. King’s tribulations and my moment of inconvenience. Dr. King was changing the world. I was just trying to get to a destination on time.
But in both cases, customs superseded rules. Following the letter of the law was less important than adhering to broader principles.
In my case, that meant upholding the promise of punctuality. Going a few miles over the speed limit would be a calculated gamble — one that might burn me. But showing up late was a less forgivable outcome.
So, once the road widened and my vehicle accelerated, I became an outlaw of sorts. I defied one edict to uphold another.
My experience is not unique. Many of us have made similar tradeoffs from time to time.
We tend not to speak of these exploits. For it shatters our preferred narrative — the one where we always do the right thing.
But perhaps it’s time to lift the veil. Perhaps it’s time we make peace with our momentary naughtiness.
For ultimately, rules and customs are hollow shells. They hold the shape of ideals. But they lack the ballast.
It’s on us to fill them with weight. It’s on us to determine what matters and when.
It’s our obligation to decide all this. And there’s nothing wrong with that.