(Publisher’s Note: This Op-Ed by Butch Maxwell is a reaction to the column composed by regular contributor, Dolph Santorine. A link to Santorine’s commentary can be found at the bottom of Maxwell’s piece.)
By Butch Maxwell
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the recent editorial regarding Saturday’s demonstrations. While we approach politics from different perspectives, I believe that respectful disagreement is not a weakness of democracy but its lifeblood.
The Right—and Duty—to Dissent
To describe peaceful protesters as “mentally unstable” misunderstands the very foundation of our republic. Dissent is not disorder; it is citizenship. When Americans gather to voice concerns about their government, they are doing precisely what the First Amendment guarantees. The right to speak, to assemble, and to petition for redress of grievances is not conditional upon convenience or popularity. It exists especially for moments when such expression makes others uncomfortable.
Evidence Matters
The editorial claims that the demonstration “drove more voters to the Republican Party” and that there was a measurable “spike” in registration afterward. Such assertions invite scrutiny. Public voter registration data are readily available; if there were such a spike, it would be documented. In the absence of evidence, this claim is not analysis. It’s opinion dressed as fact.
Minor Inconvenience, Major Principle
Yes, protests can momentarily slow traffic or interrupt routines. That is the nature of collective expression. But to label brief inconvenience as “disrespect” is to suggest that civic participation should be invisible and silent. By that standard, the Boston Tea Party would have been an intolerable disturbance.
From my observation as a participant, the organizers went to great lengths to ensure safety and minimize disruption. What they did not minimize was visibility. And that, of course, is the point of public protest.
Protest Is Not Policy—It’s the Prelude to It
The editorial’s claim that protesters “whined and presented no solutions” betrays a misunderstanding of how social progress begins. Protests are not policy documents; they are calls to conscience. Every major American reform, from women’s suffrage to civil rights to labor protections, began with citizens gathering in public to say, “This is wrong.” What begins as “whining” often becomes history.
“I Wish He Were King”
Perhaps the most revealing moment in the editorial is the author’s aside: “I do wish he were King so he could end the meaningless government shutdown.” That sentiment should chill any American, conservative or progressive alike. Our founders fought a war precisely to avoid kings. They built a system of checks and balances to ensure that no leader could govern by decree. To wish for a king is not to express frustration; it is to renounce the very principle of self-government.
Democracy Is Not a Winner-Take-All Game
To dismiss West Virginia Democrats as “quaint relics of a bygone era” is to confuse political dominance with moral authority. Parties rise and fall, but the right to participate does not depend on which one currently holds the majority. A healthy democracy requires loyal opposition: Voices willing to question, challenge, and hold power accountable. Without that, we drift from republic to rule.
A Lesson from a 91-Year-Old Citizen
Ironically, the anecdote about the author’s 91-year-old mother protesting in Florida reveals something admirable: that even in her tenth decade, she still believes her voice matters. That is not delusion or instability; it is faith in democracy. At any age, the willingness to stand up for one’s beliefs is an act of civic grace.
The Measure of a Protest
The editorial ends by asserting that the protesters “accomplished nothing.” But the measure of a protest is not in how quickly it changes a law or an election result. It lies in whether it keeps conscience alive in public life, whether it reminds those in power that citizens are watching, and whether it inspires others not to give up on engagement.
Elections have consequences, yes, but so do protests, letters to the editor, and conversations among neighbors who disagree. Democracy is not an event every four years; it is a conversation that never ends.
The Common Ground of Citizenship
I respect the author’s right to support his preferred candidates and policies. I respect his right to speak freely. But I reject the idea that dissenters are unstable, irrelevant, or disloyal. To love one’s country is to hold it accountable to its ideals.
That is not instability. That is patriotism.
In the end, democracy requires more than consent. It requires dissent. And that, perhaps, is something on which true conservatives and true progressives should agree.
