We have no reason to think “political” is connected to advancement in a profession. Nothing in the end of P2 relates to one’s career or professional advancement.

We have no reason to think “political” is connected to unethical methods of the government. Nothing in the end of P2 relates to the unethical government methods.

As described in the end of P2, “political” relates to the prestige and perceived fairness of the legal institution. The ethical standards between professionals and nonprofessionals is a separate issue. Ethical standards relate to things like fraud, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, etc. Ethical standards are about how professionals treat the public. But “political” in context involves the relationship between the legal institution and the public, not between individual professionals (such as lawyers) and the public.

This best captures the meaning of “political” as shown by the discussion at the end of P2. In order to maintain the effectiveness of the legal institution, we need people to believe law is a logical, coherent whole. The author doesn’t use the word “effectiveness,” but it’s reasonable to think that if the public is demoralized by law, and if the legal institution loses its prestige, that it would become less effective.

The discussion at the end of P2 doesn’t involve the way law is seen by “radical theorists.” It does involve the way law is seen by the public; but we have no reason to think the perception of “radical theorists” is relevant to the meaning of “political.”