Governmental Balance

MON., NOV. 4, 1996, 11:44 PM
AIRPORT, LAX

In a few minutes it will be tomorrow, a day of election in your culture. You know that I am only minimally interested in governments, having refused, as Jesus, to “take the government upon My shoulders”. Governments are necessary, but rarely does any one form maintain superiority.

Your democracy, in its representative form, is one with some merit, but, as practiced, the election process is expensive and inordinately influenced by individuals and groups with money and voting power. The balance, however, is now a rather fair one, with neither extreme having clear dominance. Even if the polls should be wrong and there is an “upset”, the changes are not likely to be as stark as has been proclaimed.

Those who vote are likely to be only about half of those registered. This means that those who do not vote (and this may include you) must accept what those elected choose to pass and deny. This is as fair as is possible, but theoretically it means the system is far from ideal.

If I were, in some form, to take this government upon My shoulders, how would I govern? With your diverse population (which, in some ways is desirable) I could not meet all needs (let alone wants) without acting supernaturally. Those who are achieving and contributing need to be rewarded somewhat in proportion to accomplishments, but this would have to come at the expense of some with less talent, drive, and persistence. In some ways this is fair. In others it is not. And decisions of this nature are made each day, many times, in many ways. I would not enjoy the consequences of some decisions that would benefit some, at the expense of others.

It would be difficult for Me, as a loving God, to deal with criminals, particularly those who have acted violently. Forgiveness would have to come only for those who truly repent or whose motives for their crimes were basically unselfish. Many criminals are not repentant, and thus forgiveness would be weakness. Execution would send some back to a spirit world. I could justify this, but wouldn’t I have to use supernatural powers of discernment rather than the arguments of lawyers and the decisions of juries? I would be tempted.

I would not continue to encourage many of the varied forms of “progress” that characterize your culture. I would want a simpler, less stratified way of life, but how could I naturally bring about such changes and maintain peace and approval? I encourage you in this direction, personally, and as a teacher… and there are others… but you make little headway against these “progressive” values. Keep it up, but don’t expect great success.

There would have to be more honor given to simple jobs of human labor like some of your Farm chores, but wouldn’t I have to resort to some supernatural means of transforming human values? Would I have any other viable alternatives?

Conservatives want less government, but in relation to issues and projects which don’t seem to affect them. Liberals want more government as a means of balancing conservative inequalities. Neither seems willing to favor more taxation, but there are few other sources of revenue to maintain or increase needed programs.

Is “defense” or the increased capacity to make war one of My priorities? I truly cannot see Myself as the Commander-in-Chief of a sophisticated, technological fighting force. Would I then be willing to take the possible consequences of such “unpreparedness”? I would have to. Would I again have to go to supernatural powers?

You can’t imagine that I would want to provide high-tech, high expense medical care to whomever “needed” it. But how would I “sell” “a time to be born and a time to die”, with death being just a change of scene?