The fundamental relationship in United States politics at the state and city levels is that between client and patron: favors are sought, and the politician who can promise to supply them is supported. This same relationship operates at the congressional level as well.

One may wish that the client-patron relationship did not operate in Congress, but the existence of the relationship must be acknowledged if one is to understand the basic issues of morality in politics. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how, without some such relationship, a national legislature could operate at all in a country in which the interests that have to be reconciled are so many, so scattered, and so diverse. There are bargains to be struck, and Congress is the place where the multifarious local and even private interests of the entire nation are brought into an orderly relationship. Representatives and senators spend much of their time buttonholing colleagues to ask for support in a committee or subcommittee for appropriations or measures that are desirable for their particular districts or states, in return for the promise that similar favors will be given in the future.

The principle of amicitial, the responsible friendship that was a sacred agreement for the Roman politician, must supersede the principles of the client¬patron relationship. Favors are still involved in amicitial, but they are political in the truest sense. A candidate for the presidency who forms an amicitial with a governor or a mayor enters an alliance in the strictest political meaning: a president does not buy a mayor, any more than a mayor buys a president, with cash payments.

The political price that is paid is seen in terms not only of the immediate benefits that it will bring, such as the winning of an election, but of the opportunity that it provides to continue, after the election, the pursuit of political objectives that are beyond mere ambition. Ultimately, there can be no morality in politics—and no possibility of it—if those who hold the highest positions have no sense of amicitial and of its meaning in the process of politics.

1) It can be inferred that a political favor “in the truest sense” (highlighted text) is one that

A) involves both private and public commercial interests
B) demands benefits for a particular constituency as well as for the politician who represents it
C) provides reciprocal payments in both financial and political support
D) involves only candidates for high federal positions
E) represents an exchange of confidence and mutual support in carrying out particular policies


2) The author speaks of morality primarily in terms of

A) traditional notions of good and evil
B) principles of Roman law
C) the political rights described in the United States Constitution
D) the everyday workings of the business community in the United States
E) the responsibilities inherent in human relationships