1. …politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.
2. …the concept of interest defined in terms of power
3. …power is an objective category which is universally valid, but it does not endow that concept with a meaning that is fixed
4. …aware of the ineluctable tension between the moral command and the requirements of successful political action
5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. […] it is exactly the concept of interest defined in terms of power that saves us from both that moral excess and that political folly.
6. Political realism is based upon a pluralistic conception of human nature.

   …Real man is a composite of “economic man,” “political man,” “moral man,” “religious man,” etc. A man who was nothing but “political man” would be a beast, for he would be completely lacking in moral restraints. A man who was nothing but “moral man” would be a fool, for he would be completely lacking in prudence. A man who was nothing but “religious man” would be a saint, for he would be completely lacking in worldly desires.

   Intellectually, the political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere, as the economist, the lawyer, the moralist maintain theirs. He thinks in terms of interest defined as power, as the economist thinks in terms of interest defined as wealth; the lawyer, of the conformity of action with legal rules; the moralist, of the conformity of action with moral principles. The economist asks: “How does this policy affect the wealth of society, or a segment of it?” The lawyer asks: “Is this policy in accord with the rules of law?” The moralist asks: “Is this policy in accord with moral principles?” And the political realist asks: “How does this policy affect the power of the nation?” (Or of the federal government, of Congress, of the party, of agriculture, as the case may be.)

Tyler Cowen: “A sufficiently long time horizon will favor growth over redistribution even if we are counting only the interests of the very poor in the social welfare function. The benefits of radical redistribution are one-time in nature. We can try to equalize all wealth today, but we would not be able to draw on comparable resources for the next generation. Such a widespread collective redistribution would lead rapidly to negative economic growth. In contrast the benefits of economic growth will compound over time.”

“…cities tend to be very diverse, and the fundamental social adaptations required for urban life are built around toleration of very different people living next door. This is in contrast to rural life, where the fundamental social adaptations are built around everyone being able to cooperate and work together as a single society — so that difference is accepted so long as it falls within a particular broader envelope, but is very dangerous beyond that.”