I've been sort of re-entering the world of politics lately. Now that I live with cable, I can watch the U.S. Senate from time to time, as well as various functions of government on the state level. I have a goal, informally, of at some point understanding power. Or at least of feeling like I am immune to its rhetoric.

My main difficulty so far has been that it seems the rhetoric of power most easily elicits three variant responses: agreement, disagreement within the context of opposing rhetoric (also a type of agreement), and disgust. All three of these responses are build on the common base of an inability to penetrate or completely understand what lies behind the rhetoric. What lies behind is, presumably, the structures of power, and power itself.

Are the structures of power different from the rhetoric of power? Probably not completely. But I think that it is likely that there is some disconnect between the two. For example, there are undoubtedly situations wherein the rhetoric of power is not caused by the structures of power. This is quite clear when one watches the Senate. The rhetoric of power, or so it seems, is little more, at times, than ideological banter. So, if the structures of power have dictated the results of a vote before the discussion of the amendment, the rhetoric of the discussion is at some level of disconnect from the pure struggle of power already undergone, if such a thing were conceivable. (As for whether there are instances where the structures of power are not caused by the rhetoric of power, it might seem unlikely; however, we shall consider the rhetoric of power to be less universal, more superficial, and basically defined as the rhetoric used by those in power to which those over whom they have power have intentionally been given access.)

Watching the Senate proceedings reveals that the rhetoric is often aimed as much at the people, through the news media, as it is at the senator addressed. That's only natural, I suppose; however, the news media can only quote the rhetoric, as it is the whole, more or less, of the proceeding. The media is unlikely to allow itself to attempt to ferret out the pure power relationships. Especially since the senators themselves may not be completely aware of them.

Which raises perhaps the most perplexing question. Do politicians believe themselves, and does it matter if and when they do? My brother has mentioned to me that ideas don't exist. If ideas don't exist, you're left with politicians themselves, I suppose.

If so, then to understand power one need not watch the senate. One would be best, I think, to attempt to understand power by understanding oneself. For it would never be possible for "even the President of the United States" to "stand naked" with all his true motivations before you. Or any other politician. The most likely person you are going to be able to scrutinize is yourself, because you have the most information about that person and his or her relationships (some say every relationship is a matter of power). But, you might say, all that information is subjective and may be false. True, but the ability to see through your own lies is most likely the secret to understanding power. In other words, forget about it.