I've noticed that some of us are getting hung up on the term "99%," suggesting its use as a basis for consensus, or as a justification to keep the direction of the movement vague to the point of impotence.
Of course I speak for myself in this opinion, but I don't think it's logical to obey the thematic identity of the group when determining policy. The term "99%" refers to an income bracket which encompasses the majority within this country, and many others (likely with some variation in the actual wages involved). One perspective supposes that we can unite 99% of the population on the key issue(s) which concern its economic status, and oppression -- direct and not -- by the 1%. As such, some have been careful to avoid alienating anyone of any political or ideological stripe, in the hope of winning their support.
I'd argue that this is grossly impractical. In terms of the social ideological spectrum alone, it's difficult to imagine many conservatives wouldn't feel alienated by the atmosphere within occupied sites. The very liberal can get along with anyone for the most part, but there are social conservatives who would blanche at the very presence of people representing different beliefs and lifestyles. Further, in economic terms, I'll start by offering this statistic: 20% of Americans expect to become millionaires in the near future. Even in this economic climate, there are segments of our class which identify with, and thus act in the interests of, the 1%. The only way to win these people over would be to negate the very core of the movement's message.
There is no reasonable amount of dilution which can truly win a 99% majority. It's true that we have the support, or at least tolerance, or 70-80% of Americans in general, but there is simply no way, short of misleading people by presenting the movement as a totally blank slate, to convince absolutely every one of our economic peers. Realistically, there is a particular mindset which lends itself to demanding justice, and not everyone possesses it.
The significance of the "99%" term encompasses a class which concerns those of us involved in this movement. That isn't to say we require or demand their support when acting on what we believe to be their behalf, pushing for things we consider in their best interests, in safeguarding them from the exploitation and terrorism of corporations and corrupt government. It's not our intent to control or forcibly persuade them of anything. Rather we want to lighten their hardships along with our own, and remove the many obstacles to success which have been deliberately implemented over the past several decades. What they do from there is their choice (as is what we do ourselves).
I ask that this might be considered when deciding whether to dilute or abandon support for an idea for fear that it will alienate someone. The sad fact is that some of the 99% will be alienated by justice itself.