Psychologist Todd Essig has posted an interesting article on Forbes contrasting the OWS and Tea Party movements. The Contrasting Psychologies of 'Occupy Wall Street' and the 'Tea Party'
From the start the Tea Party was about safety through exclusion, protecting oneself from outside influences—including a President seen as an un-American “other,” perhaps for racial reasons, perhaps other reasons as well. What the Tea Party rejected was anything perceived by them as coming from outside the center of America. It’s not us, it’s never us; it’s them. Bad things were by definition “un-American” or “against the Constitution.”
...
The start of OWS is radically different. Everyone is included, everyone gets to have a say. Rather than policy they have process. The “we” of OWS is worldwide, a globalized, networked “we” full of good and bad existing simultaneously and everywhere. The messier the better; better to let in those you don’t want then miss out on including those you do. Of course, inclusion can be a big problem because people say and do lots of really stupid things. And all that stupidity is then felt as “us,” not “them.” But that’s the trade-off of inclusion; you have to take the good along with bad.
It kind of addresses one of the concerns I've had about OWS: it tends to attract anarchists and people just looking for trouble. I have to commend the local organizers for not letting the movement get off message.
Recommended reading.