????這場抗議活動的核心要求似乎是讓奧巴馬總統“組建總統委員會，負責結束金錢對國會議員的影響”。除此之外，這場運動無處不在的主題似乎是抗議美國1%的富人及其所謂的貪婪。 “占領華爾街”運動的領導者們在接受采訪時自稱為“另外的那99%”，也就是說他們代表了絕大多數的美國人。但就我們看來，可以確定的是，到目前為止，抗議活動的主要參與者是左翼中的左翼，年輕人和失業者。比如，馬克思主義者斯拉沃熱?齊澤克昨天（10月10日）曾向抗議者發表演說。

????顯然，這場運動缺乏組織、效果有限，除了“錢”和“華爾街”都都不是好東西的觀點之外，沒有一個真正統一的主張。上周末，“占領華爾街”運動的一個團體在亞特蘭大集會，邀請了眾議員約翰?劉易斯發表講話。劉易斯自1987年開始擔任國會議員，被普遍視作美國民權運動的領袖。然而，最近的一個視頻顯示，這個團體甚至無法確定到底應不應該請劉易斯講話。這事著實有趣。

????盡管缺乏組織，“占領華爾街”運動仍然吸引了大量關注。據谷歌趨勢（Google Trends）上“占領華爾街”的搜索位置顯示，對這場運動的關注大多來自于美國自由主義色彩較濃的地區。

????人們已經把這場運動與茶黨進行了一番比較。到目前為止，這些比較有點不夠準確。雖然只是一個少數群體，但茶黨已經證明了其在政治和資金方面的組織性，使得該團體能夠改變2010年選舉進程。要想具備真正的影響力，“占領華爾街”運動需要金錢支持（據稱他們擁有4萬美元銀行存款），但金錢恰恰是他們主要的抗議對象。

????盡管如此，正如文末圖表所示，“占領華爾街”運動在媒體關注方面確實可以與處于相同時間段的茶黨相提并論。就實際組織而言，這兩個團體都是松散的地區性團體，缺乏核心領導。到目前為止，兩者的主要區別似乎在于資金（億萬富豪科赫兄弟是茶黨的重要支持者）和更為明確和統一的訴求。

????茶黨在短時間內就提出了明確的主張，為其在2010年選舉中帶來了許多重大勝利，其中包括：

????—馬克羅?魯比奧擊敗查理?克里斯特成為弗羅里達州參議員；

????—斯科特?布朗贏得了特德?肯尼迪的馬薩諸塞州參議員席位；

????—蘭德?保羅贏得肯塔基州參議員席位；

????—在初選和眾議員席位方面取得了眾多勝利

????除了干擾紐約的旅游業之外，“占領華爾街”運動到底會不會產生真正的影響？目前還言之尚早。但毫無疑問，媒體已經為他們提供了發言的平臺。如果能進行募款并做到組織有序，那么“占領華爾街”運動或許能形成一個利益集團，在2012年選舉中發出響亮的、具有巨大影響力的聲音。

????譯者：千牛絮

????The central demand of the organization appears to be for President Obama to "ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington." Beyond that the pervasive theme appears to be in protesting the richest 1% of Americans and their purported greed. In fact, when interviewed, leaders of Occupy Wall Street commonly refer to themselves as "the other 99%," which suggests that they represent a broad segment of the U.S. demographic. As far as we can determine, the group, to date, is largely made up of the left of the left wing, youth, and those underemployed. As a case in point, Marxist Slavoj Zizek spoke to the group yesterday.

????To be clear, it is not apparent that there is any organization behind the movement that will make it overly effective, or that there is truly a coherent view, other than that "money" and "Wall Street" are bad. To wit, this weekend an Occupy Wall Street group met in Atlanta and invited Congressman John Lewis to speak to them. He has been a member of Congress since 1987 and is widely considered a leader in the American civil rights movement. A recent video, which is admittedly anecdotal, shows this segment of Occupy Wall Street could not even decide whether they should led Congressman Lewis peak to them.

????Despite the lack of organization, Occupy Wall Street is garnering mindshare. According to the location of searches for "Occupy Wall Street" in Google Trends, the group is gaining the majority of its traction in more liberal areas in the U.S.

????Analogies are already being made to the Tea Party. As of yet, those analogies are somewhat inaccurate. The Tea Party proved itself, even if a minority group, to be organized both politically and monetarily, which allowed the group to effect change in the 2010 election. To be truly effective, Occupy Wall Street will need money (they purportedly have $40,000 in the bank), the one key thing they appear to be protesting.

????That being said, as the chart below shows, Occupy Wall Street does appear to be getting comparable traction in the media as the Tea Party did after roughly the same period of time. In terms of actual organization, the two groups are both loosely affiliated regional groups with no central leadership. The key differences so far though seem to be funding (the billionaire Koch brothers are a key backer of the Tea Party) and a more coherent set of concerns and issues.

????The cohesiveness that the Tea Party was able to build in short order led to a number of key electoral victories in 2010, including:

????- Marco Rubio defeating Charlie Crist for Senate in Florida;

????- Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts;

????- Rand Paul won a Kentucky Senate seat; and

????- Numerous primary and congressional seat victories.

????It's too early to tell whether Occupy Wall Street will have real impact beyond disrupting the tourist flow in New York. The media, though, is certainly giving the platform a voice. Should fundraising and organization follow, Occupy Wall Street may be an interest group with a loud and disruptive voice in the 2012 elections.