Despite cold winds and light rain, my boyfriend and I arrived in front of the congressional building in the early morning. The crowd of occupiers consisted almost entirely of polite young people, who were overshadowed by two older women holding a large banner and angrily shouting commands and simplified ideologies through a megaphone. Joining this obnoxious minority were two hotheaded homeless men who stank of mildew and alcohol, and had most likely been living in the nearby park long before hundreds of occupiers decided to join them. From the outside, the protest could have easily been mistaken for a liberal arts college barbecue or a small music festival. The “activism” intensified that evening, but overall, I was struck by how little communication occurred between the protestors and their target audience, government officials.

Although the Occupy website encouraged protesters to set up meetings with their Congressman by providing instructions about how to get in touch with a representative, as far as I could tell, very few occupiers pursued this course. Luckily, my friend Jason had the tenacity to set up a meeting with his state representative. He allowed a few of his friends to tag along to what ended up being a very interesting meeting with a legislative aid.

The legislative aid was very cordial but surprisingly uniformed about the Occupy movement. Despite extensive news coverage of Occupy protests, she expressed confusion about the protestors’ goals and grievances and was unaware that occupiers were gathered in front of the Congressional building as we spoke. After Jason presented her with his carefully crafted proposal containing ways of curbing the influence of wealthy donors on the actions of politicians, I asked her if she felt like representatives’ votes were swayed by campaign donations. She claimed she didn’t know who donated to her boss’s campaign and that she was unaffected by the desires of campaign donors. In the face of such heavy questioning, she made what I interpreted as an effort to defend government and her role in it. “We really are doing good here,” she stated, after explaining that most of her time at work was spent communicating with concerned citizens. She reminded us that citizens were free to write to their congressmen or set up meetings to voice their concerns. My mind immediately flashed back to our experience making our way to her office.

The experience of entering the Congressional Building (or, more accurately, the Rayburn House Office Building, which contains the offices of state representatives) is anything but inviting. We were required to state our purpose for entering before removing our personal items and passing through security. Our footsteps echoed as we walked through eerily quiet marble halls searching for the right office. Every now and then a man or woman dressed in a business suit passed by, giving us a blank stare, which only intensified the feeling that we were somehow trespassing. Although I was generally excited by the idea that I had gained access to such a prestigious institution, I could definitely relate to one of my friend’s comments that she felt like, “we weren’t supposed to be here.”

I wondered about who was likely to endure the emotionally harrowing experience of entering such an uninviting place and what was in the minds of the architects who had designed the Rayburn House office building. Had they intended to create an intimidating atmosphere – one that only the “right” people would feel comfortable entering? Were the people who were brave enough to make an appointment with a congressman typical of the average citizen, or were they more like some of the protestors we had seen earlier – unconsciously obnoxious, brash, and irritating? I imagined what my life would be like if I were a legislative aid, interacting with these people day after day. How would my perspective about Washington outsiders change? Would I come to believe that everyone was out to get me? All these questions remained unanswered, but I came to sympathize with the aid, who felt she had to assure us that she really was doing some good.

During Occupy Congress, both sides, the government officials and the protesters, suffered because of the physical and emotional barriers to communication, barriers that only certain types of people (notably, radicals) are comfortable crossing. How can the average concerned citizen get his or her voice heard? Further, how can government officials gain an understanding of public opinion that transcends the superficial generalizations gained through research techniques like polling?

I believe the answer lies with technology. Since it’s inception the internet has provided a cheap and easy way for people to share information and form large networks. Yet only a few websites (see Open Congress) have tapped the internet’s potential for facilitating political information sharing and social networking. Imagine a future where we could use new technologies to bridge understanding between government officials and concerned citizens. I hope to dedicate my efforts to creating this future, but I cannot do it alone. Please join me.

Jonathan Haidt, a psychology professor at University of Virginia, describes how political affiliation relates to five universal core values: care, fairness, loyalty to an ingroup, respect for authority and tradition, and purity. His research shows that liberals value care and fairness more than respect, loyalty, and purity. In comparison to liberals, conservatives value care and fairness less, but appreciate tradition, loyalty, and purity more. While care came in first place for both groups, purity was last for liberals and fairness was last for conservatives.

Haidt’s gives the following advice for dealing with differences:

“If you want to change other people, you can’t just go storming in saying I’m right you’re wrong…because everybody thinks they are right. A lot of the problems we have to solve are problems that require us to change other people, and if you want to change other people, a much better way to do it is to first understand who we are, understand our moral psychology, understand that we all think we are right, step out of the moral matrix…everybody has some reasons, even if you disagree with them, for what they are doing.”