Before there can be an understanding of politics, policy, and action in education, there must be an understanding of the value systems of policymakers. Policymakers, in their talk, in their choices of symbols and metaphors, in their choices of strategies for dealing with conflict, reveal their own needs, their role orientations, their group affiliations, and their assumptions about how the decisionmaking process should occur. This paper draws on research conducted by the Alternate State Policy Mechanism (ASPM) study, which used common interviewing protocols and methods with people in comparable positions in six different state policy systems. Using data showing the relative influence rankings of a wide range of policy actors (including lobbyists and bureaucrats), this paper focuses on the words of policymakers--their modes of expression and obfuscation--as well as their rituals, assumptions about appropriate behavior, and sanctioning systems as a means of understanding power and policy systems at the state level. The paper also identifies the commonalities and significant differences displayed in the relative rankings of influence of policy groups in the different states. The data collection instrument used in the survey findings for each state and four pages of references are appended. (IW)