Read some quality history of long dead eras. I find the most intriguing to be Sengoku (Warring States) Japan, the transition from the late Roman Republic to the early Roman Empire, and Renaissance Italy. You can find good narratives and commentaries of these eras, like Edward Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Eiji Yoshikawa's Taiko (historical fiction, but accurate enough jumping off point). Reading a biography that follows one guy around can be pretty good - Julia Cartwright's "Baldissare Castiglione" is pretty good, it's a good read especially if you've already read The Prince by Machiavelli. (Definitely read a commentary/analyis of The Prince alongside it, though, so you understand the pressures on Machiavelli while writing)
Likewise, reading autobiographies and first hand accounts alongside commentaries can be interesting. I like Julius Cesar's autobiographical "The Gallic Wars." I have an electronic copy of Flavius Josephus's Books of the History of the Jewish War against the Romans, but haven't read it yet - but that looks really, really fascinating to me. I'll read it along with a commentary.
Understanding old politics (Roman, fragmented Italy states, fragmented Japan followed by unified Japan) has helped me understand new politics. Basically, the mainstream interpretation of anything political that happened after year 1750 or so is questionable and suspect. By all means, still learn modern history, but there's so much misinformation out there.
If you want a real head trip, go read Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address. That'll show you how inaccurate the mainstream interpretation of events 200 years ago are. Really, seriously, it messed with my head when I read it -
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
Read his thoughts on slavery and fugitive slaves in there, and his argument for why nonviolent secession from the union is an act of violence. "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors."
Start with the history of old politics if you want to understand new politics. Everything you've learned post-1750 without verifying from primary sources is suspect. I'm not exaggerating, nor am I a conspiracy theorist - I dig around through primary sources. Ever stop and wonder why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor after the USA was its closest ally from the formation of the Empire up until four years before the war broke out?
All mainstream views on modern politics are suspect. Start with older eras with issues we aren't emotional about today, then once understanding duplicity and doublespeak, start learning about the modern era. For the record, I wholly support Lincoln and think he was a great President, despite the fact that I have a 180 degree different view of his intentions than most people. (In my view from my studies, he was a pure conquest imperialist, not any sort of liberator... but I still like him and think he made largely the right choice after the secession)