Editorial: Wall Street protesters need to be focused, practical

• Reprints

Updated: November 16, 2011 12:12PM

Of course Occupy Wall Street makes sense.

As do Occupy Chicago, Occupy Atlanta and all the other offshoots of this national grassroots protest movement against the lopsided power of corporate and Wall Street interests in American political and economic life.

And the nascent movement, long overdue, will continue to make sense as long as it avoids adopting goals defined by narrow self-interest, such as forgiving student loans, and resists being co-opted by established institutions, most notably labor unions.

Just as the Tea Party is most credible and effective when it refuses to behave like an auxiliary of the Republican Party, so too the Occupy movement can remain credible to the extent that it does not become a front for the Democratic Party or public employee unions.

But the movement’s driving force — a gut-level outrage toward Wall Street (and La Salle Street) excesses — is justifiable. Ordinary Americans believe the system is rigged. And while the Occupiers may not represent 99 percent of Americans, as they claim to, they can’t be wished away as kids and kooks. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) is clueless when he dismisses the protesters as “growing mobs.”

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, though a target of the Occupy movement, came closer to the truth last week:

“They blame, with some justification, the problems in the financial sector for getting us into this mess, and they’re dissatisfied with the policy response here in Washington,” Bernanke said. “And at some level, I can’t blame them.”

Occupy Chicago — our shorthand here for the entire movement — understands that it is morally indefensible to cut Medicare benefits for the elderly without first increasing taxes on millionaires.

Occupy Chicago understands that it is morally indefensible for failing corporations to make massive layoffs while awarding generous bonuses to top executives.

Occupy Chicago understands that our system of politics is woefully out of whack when international corporations, having been declared “persons” by the Supreme Court, can pour unlimited funds into elections, buying up Capitol Hill.

Far more difficult for the Occupiers will be reaching consensus on what to do about all this.

They may easily agree, for example, on the wisdom of the “Buffett Rule,” which says that millionaires should pay in taxes at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers. That is one of 12 proposed policy goals posted at Occupy Chicago’s website, occupychi.org.

But another proposal — to “prosecute the Wall Street criminals” for the 2008 financial meltdown — strikes some Occupy Chicago bloggers as absurd. The movement, they wisely say, must avoid any hint of vindictiveness or petty self-interest.

“Detractors of the movement are labeling the protesters as the ‘gimmee, gimme, gimmee’ crowd,” wrote one blogger, Pauszchristopher, arguing against an amnesty for student loans. “What next — forgive all credit card debt? Supporting student debt amnesty will alienate millions and damage the movement.

“You are really losing sight of what this movement is about,” Pauszchristopher continues. “It should be about changing the system, giving a voice to the people. And that starts with getting the little guy in office — rooting out the entrenched and corrupted officials. Campaign finance reform, election law changes.”

Sounds about right to us.