Protest is a form of public discourse. Public discourse can only benefit democracy, because it informs the elected authorities that other opinions are out there.

When the elected authorities ignore portions of the alternate opinions, they run the risk of not being re-elected should those opinions become those of the majority of voters.

Protest takes various forms. Only one of those is demonstration.

If there is no public discourse, there is no democracy. Period. Unless you are willing to posit that everyone agrees about everything all the time, which reminds me more of "The Stepford Wives" than of any civic experience I have ever had.

"Right" and "wrong", in the context in which you use them here, take on a theological tint, a dangerous thing to mix with politics. Politics is negotiation. There is no negotiation without dialog. Silence is not helpful in this regard.

Your observations on emotion in public displays of personal belief need to be applied to all demonstrations in order to have rational consistency. The civil rights demonstrations of the 1960s, the student demonstrations in Tienanmen Square, the Promise Keepers marches and rallies, the gatherings at Ground Zero, Congressional representatives gathering to sing "God Bless America": all those must certainly be irrational, as they are all emotional group expression of personal belief, or of grief or anger. Unless, of course, only their emotional expression is unhealthy and invalid, whereas our emotional expression is pure, unsullied and noble.

Invariably we see this antiwar movement was spawned almost singlehandedly by anticapitalist extremists.

You wish. Or maybe you don't. To be able to pretend it's that way gives you the benefit of accusing a still amorphous and disorganized opposition of having the organizational power of the Jesuits, without having to deal with a group that commands anything like that in reality.

The prowar group is very organized, as they have the government's bureaucracy to back them up. I suppose it's only natural to believe that those who oppose the war are equally well-organized. If, in fact, they were, they would be more effective. It is easier to vilify the antiwar groups by characterizing them in this way, though.

You do have something there about discounting any valid message packaged in an offensive container. Keep that in mind.

Regards--
Mary Anne