The spreading protests of “Occupy Wall Street” may become a significant political force. What began as a rag tag band of middle class college age youths agitating against capitalism is galvanizing Main Street’s feelings of helplessness. With 14 million officially unemployed and another 5 million probably no longer seeking work; with wages for workers stuck at 1973 levels and a 7 percent decline in the real medium income of families since 2000; with growth so anemic that we cannot lower unemployment rates; with a Washington train wreck impotent to provide policy leadership; and with public employment projected to be reduced due to city, state and federal cuts….with all these alone…the mood of the country is justifiably grim.

Pundits and politicians have tended to dismiss the protests as outbursts from college-types who can’t find a job. Movements can become radical even if they start with the middle class. In the 1960s, it wasn’t the underclass that provoked cultural and political change. The leaders of the “movement” were bred in such fancy institutions as Bryn Mawr College, Columbia and Berkeley. It was kids who looked like their parents with the exception of unruly hair.

Today’s protesters lack organizing power and money. Facebook and Twitter might enable a revolt in Egypt, but by themselves they are not sufficient to sustain a national movement in this country. Establishment forces are more modern and pervasive.

The increasing disparity between the rich and poor, the have and the have-nots, has the most potential to unsettle our comfortable democracy and shake up the political establishment. Over the past decades of Republican and Democratic leadership, the gaps have widened on income, employment opportunities, education, healthcare, even who serves in the military. It isn’t a question of class warfare, although that is how those opposed to President Obama characterize his philosophy. No policies set out to cause such sharp distinctions. The gap has grown from a series of policy choices and global shifts. Such disparities cannot be in the longer term interests of any group – whether the Tea Party or Progressive.

The protests will spread, not solely because they ignite smoldering resentment, but because they will get the necessary money and organizational abilities. Already, public and private unions are increasingly interspersed with the protestors. The unions will turn the protests into a political movement.

A coalition makes political sense. Private unions, now representing less than 10% of the American workforce, need a cause. Public unions have gone through the economic changes faring relatively well. Employment has continued and workers’ wages, health benefits and pensions are better than workers in the private sector – unionized or not. Times are changing with deficit reduction headlining city, state and federal agendas.

What will the protests accomplish and how will they affect the political environment? There will be a limited effect on the presidential race unless a credible third party candidate emerges. According to media reports, Mayor Bloomberg – the most financeable candidate – has looked at a race but is not going forward. No other politician is stirring.

With the usual caveats, President Obama’s re-election looks doubtful. I was a close observer of President Carter’s 1980 re-election campaign. While historians often reach the wrong conclusions from apparently similar earlier events, we can learn something from the 1980 election. The American electorate had essentially concluded that President Carter was not an effective leader. He might have gotten lucky and the Iranian hostages might have been released, but even freed hostages probably would not have changed the electorate’s assessment. A question in that election was whether the older governor and former actor from Los Angeles would be an amiable and effective campaigner. Unfortunately for President Carter, Ronald Reagan was both.

The Republican candidate will win unless he scares the electorate. The nation seeks hope and the Obama Administration, regrettably, seems to offer none. We know in economic terms there is nothing which will reduce employment significantly prior to the election. This isn’t a political statement; it is economic analysis. We now know, and even the President has said, that we are not better off than when he took office.

Short-term, the greatest effect the protests can have is on Congress and the 2012 Congressional elections. “Occupy Wall Street”, with its vigor and youth and a just cause, has the potential to create a counter-weight to the Tea Party. Sustained and organized protests may intimidate incumbents and encourage challengers. Our hope is that the balance created by this movement will center political debate, encourage compromise and goad both parties towards responsible solutions to our nation’s problems.

Peter J. Solomon