Most people know or sense that the police will necessarily be partisan in dealing with radical challenges to established political arrangements. While partisanship on behalf of the status quo may be denied or decried, sensible people expect it. The real issue is not whether there is, might be, or should be a politically neutered police but how the police can or should behave in differing political contexts. The variety of political contexts can be generally categorized as conventional and radical. Conventional contexts are characterized by an established political process whereby change is effected gradually by accepted and manadated exercises of political power. Radical political contexts are characterized by extreme conflict that cannot be contained nor managed within a conventional political context as a group or groups adopt uncompromising positions that require radical change in existing social and political arrangements. Factors affecting whether or not a conventional or radical political context emerges are demographic, economic, cultural, territorial, organizational, and historical. Regular policing in a conventional political context contributes to political stability. Political policing in a radical context contributes to political stability if most politically significant groups are inclined toward conventional politics. Regular policing in a radical context will be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worse, because radical groups tend to benefit rather than suffer from legally restrained attempts to control them. Political policing in a conventional context will be counterproductive, because it will radicalize the target group and give credence to characterizations of the state as repressive. A conference discussion of the paper and 14 references are provided.