"Refuse any compromise" is, however, not the solution.
Good thing that's not a solution I would propose.
Not you. The shits the Tea Party put in office last year.
I'm not saying anyone should accept it as business-as-usual (that would be even worse). But at the end of the day, if people mentally divorce themselves from their government they're externalizing the problem and promoting the collapse of their system of government.
Not necessarily. It's entirely possible to blame the politicians currently in office and vote to replace them. Again, the Tea Party has the right idea in terms of replacing representatives who have failed to represent; the problem is that their replacements aren't any better. (And, as I've said before, I believe the Tea Party victories last year were more about anti-incumbent sentiment than an actual endorsement of the crazy shit the Tea Party candiates actually represent.)
I heard a piece on OWS on NPR a day or two ago where some protesters were talking about endorsing candidates but one of them rejected the idea entirely, on the premise that both parties are the enemy and both are owned by the 1%.
Which is absolutely true, but, okay, what's your alternative? Maybe he had an idea and they just didn't play it, but from what they DID play it sounded like Underpants Gnome planning. Step one is take to the streets and protest; step 3 is change the way things are done in Washington.
I think the solution for OWS is the same as it was for the Tea Party: find politicians you don't like, find politicians you DO like, and have the latter mount primary challenges against the former. While you're at it, keep your message clear and keep it in the public eye. And aside from pushing change politically, push it economically; keep giving the big banks a financial incentive to reform.