Print edition: 
The anti-Wall Street movement has confounded Republicans, Democrats and analysts alike.
The take on the right is that Occupy Wall Street is the same old riffraff of leftist anarchists, unlike the grassroots conservative tea party. Seen from the left, it's an authentic uprising against the huge income disparity in America.
Actually, it is part of a combustible global protest that goes beyond the professional rabble-rousers. There is a focus on income inequality. "Tax the rich" is a favorite slogan. The protesters are diverse and seemingly directionless.
Income and wealth inequality in America have been growing for decades with little public outcry. The catalyst for the movement now is that during the worst financial crisis since the Depression, there is a perception that Wall Street and the wealthy were taken care of while average folks suffer. That isn't a fringe view.
In good times it's considered class warfare to rail against successful leaders who've added value. There have been few complaints about the wealth that accrued to Microsoft's Bill Gates, Apple's Steve Jobs or Jack Welch of General Electric. When taxpayers directly facilitate that success and firms then lavish massive payouts on executives, it would be naive not to expect public resentment.
One of the critics of the Wall Street demonstrations cited a survey showing that three-quarters of the protesters favored higher taxes on the rich. In major U.S. media polls — by the Wall Street Journal/NBC News and Bloomberg News/Washington Post — two-thirds of the public agree.
American politicians are dancing around the issue. Republican presidential candidates Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman said the anti-Wall Street protests have struck a responsive chord. Candidate Mitt Romney initially blasted the anti-Wall Street rallies as "dangerous" and "class warfare." Within a week, he said he understood "how these people feel."
President Obama, who has raised millions from Wall Street, has sought to embrace the protesters, saying they are "giving voice to a more broad-based frustration with how our finance sector works. The American people understand that not everybody's been following the rules."
Who sets the rules today? There are reasons Democrats aren't entirely comfortable identifying with the anti-Wall Street crowd.
For all the corporate griping about reregulation, the Obama administration in 2009, led by White House economics aide Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, eschewed a hard line on Wall Street and was soft on excessive executive compensation.
The other fear is that the Occupy Wall Street protests could get out of hand and turn violent, creating a political backlash. That occurred during the anti-Vietnam War protests a couple of generations ago.
It's instructive to look back at tea party activists circa 2009. They disrupted congressional meetings. Their ranks included kooks and vestiges of the old John Birch Society. Racist sentiments surfaced.
Ultimately the movement got smarter and provided an infusion of energy for Republican candidates in the 2010 elections. After that success, the popularity of the tea party steadily declined.
No one knows if the Occupy Wall Street movement will chart a similar course.
When a cold winter arrives, most of the tents are likely to fold up. It's not as likely that the sentiments will disappear.
