A few weeks ago, MSNBC aired a special entitled "The Black Agenda" that purported to be a sober discussion of the challenges facing Black America and possible solutions. As usually happens with cable news, though, the program devolved into a muddle of shouting matches, uninformed assertions, and unproductive discussion. The principle achievement of the program was to bring to light challenges in the Black community - a fifteen percent unemployment rate, chronic poverty, etc. - that are rarely discussed in the national media. There was one moment in the broadcast in particular, however, that not only shined light upon the political challenges facing African-Americans, but upon the fundamental misunderstandings that Americans hold about our democracy.

The moment came when civil rights leader Al Sharpton and public intellectual Cornel West got into a coarse argument regarding Obama's failure to address Black economic suffering. West placed all of the blame for a lack of progress on the Black agenda squarely upon Obama's shoulders. For West, it is Obama's fault that government has not addressed the economic challenges plaguing Black America, and no one else's. His argument is basically that the Black president should automatically move to address Black concerns, regardless of the political realities or consequences.

Remarkably, Sharpton was the reasonable one in this exchange. Reflecting a better understanding of the current political climate, Sharpton insisted that Obama alone should not be blamed for lack of progress on the Black agenda. Rather, he said (with a troubling lack of self-awareness) that the failure rests with all Black leaders who have failed to move Black issues to the political forefront. His point was that Obama, as the President of the United States, does not have the responsibility to advance the Black agenda. That responsibility rests on the shoulders of Black political leaders, activists, and intellectuals such as Mr. West.

Sharpton's point reveals a larger truth about our political system that Black leaders seem to have forgotten: as a minority group, Blacks cannot rely on the government to take up their agenda willingly. Political pressure must be applied to government, so that our leaders cannot ignore the Black community. If they choose to ignore the urgent problems facing African-Americans, they must be made to understand that such a choice carries a heavy political price. This is a reality that applies to all interest groups and agendas, but Black leaders seem to have forgotten it.

As the deficit continues to dominate Beltway discourse, much has been made recently of sacrifice. When it comes to closing the massive budget deficits that plague state and federal governments, Democrats and Republicans alike preach the virtues of austerity. From California to New York, governors have used budget deficits to justify unprecedented cuts in government services, public employee unions, pension programs for said public employees, and other measures aimed at reducing crippling deficits. Even under Democratic governors like New York's Andrew Cuomo, citizens have seen education budgets gutted, aid to cities reduced, and massive lay offs, all in the name of fiscal solvency.

At the federal level, House Republicans constantly explicate on the need to reduce the federal deficit, going so far as to turn Medicare int a voucher program and advocate for billions of dollars in cuts to discretionary spending. Everything from financial assitance for college to heating subsidies for the needy were put on the chopping block in the plan that Representative Paul Ryan and his fellow Republicans passed last week. President Obama and the Democrats, though recently staking out positions against Representative Ryan's plan, have largely succumbed to this discourse of austerity, so much so that the President is forced to describe tax increases (in terms that put Orwell to shame) as reductions in spending.

As the nation's deficit troubles stand now, it is difficult to argue with the idea that governments (state governments especially) need to outline long-term plans that reduce spending while allowing government to better provide essential services. However, we should never lose sight of the fact that any sacrifice made in the name of fiscal solvency must not be borne on the backs of the middle and poor classes alone. That type of austerity is not only morally questionable, but economically dangerous. Unfortunately, that is exactly what leaders of both parties are offering us today.

Then check out our coverage of it here: live tweets. (now, not so live, but you can still read the stream)

Feel free to follow @cu_politics on twitter for more updates.

Join over 80 people who already do.

The fundamental question that President Obama asked the country when he ran against John McCain in 2008 was whether or not Americans wanted "change."  In fact, it was the word that he used repeatedly in railing against George W. Bush, and, in tying McCain to the then highly unpopular president, in warning voters against sending another Republican into the Oval Office.

Last week, President Obama announced his intention to run for reelection, and, in some ways, he himself ironically needs to answer the same question that he asked Americans in 2008.  Two of Obama's biggest campaign slogans were "Change You Can Believe In" and "Change that Works for You."  But, in light of all that he has done-- and not done-- during the past four years, it would be fair for the American people to have doubts about the type of change, or what change for that matter, Obama has brought to the Beltway and for the nation.

Yesterday, Democrats and Republicans finally found compromise on an issue that has been dogging Congress for weeks.  Democrats essentially agreed to $38.5 million in cuts to the current year's fiscal budget-- more than they would have liked after initially only agreeing to about $30 million-- while Republicans removed controversial "riders" attached to the budget bill that would have cut funding for Planned Parenthood and enivronmental programs.

All parties from all of the different perspectives have finally come together and agreed to one forum to be moderated by the non-partisan Columbia Political Union (CPU).  Columbia University College Republicans (CUCR), Everyone Allied Against Homophobia (EAAH), Columbia Queer Alliance (CQA), Black Students Organization (BSO), and the Columbia University Democrats (CU Dems) will all be in attendance on Wednesday, April 6, from 8 PM to 11 PM in 203 Mathematics. 

After apparently initially going behind each other's backs and scheduling rival forums on different days out of spite for each other and then the same time on the same day, CUCR and the pro-Safe Space parties will be able to look each other in the face when making their claims about the necessity of safe spaces on Columbia's campus. 

The Columbia Political Union-- the same folks who hosted former RNC chairman Michael Steele on campus earlier this semester-- has for its mission statement "to increase political involvement, create fora for open discussion and debate, and provide access to information."

THIS WEDNESDAY there will be a discussion in 203 Math to discuss safe spaces. The facebook event page as well as the posters themsevles have generated a lot of discussion.

One commenter on the facebook event page wrote:

CUCR's flyers were misleading, inflammatory, and puerile, but they've done their job: conversation has exploded on campus about the symbolism and reality of safe spaces, and why they're necessary. There's inarguably a lot wrong with the GOP flyers - for one, they don't distinguish between simple club spaces on campus and the symbolic pink "safe space" flyers, which aim for ubiquity and exist as a product of the string of suicides earlier in the year that were clear reminders that homophobia is still very real in this country.

Which is a clear indication of the passion behind these arguments as well as the way these posters have stimulated conversation.

To add your voice to the conversation, vote on CPU's poll and go to Math 203 THIS WEDNESDAY at 8pm -- CPU (and cubpub) will be there to cover the event. So come if you want a chance to see yourself hipsterized like these cool people.

Columbia University has long been associated with its Leftist activism, and its 1969 ban of ROTC has become a symbol of Columbia's positioning on the political spectrum.  However, the University Senate resolution on April 1st to remove the ROTC ban was a significant shift for Columbia.  The Senate's vote of 51 to 17 with 1 abstention sent a clear message that the University is not simply a cornerstone of liberalism.

The decision has sent ripples across the various news outlets, and while other universities have also been re-examining their ROTC policies given the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, the contrast of Columbia's traditional stance with this decision is particularly provoking.  The New York Times reported yesterday that, "For reasons both of history and institutional character, however, none [of the similar initiatives at other universities] has the importance of Columbia, which was home to a particularly vigorous chapter of Students for a Democratic Society--some of whose most militant members helped form the left-wing radical group the Weathermen."

According to a poll posted by CPU this Wednesday, a majority of people who voted are "pro" safe-space.

15 people voted "Safe spaces emphasize difference"

105 people voted "Safe spaces are a positive thing in the community"

and 4 are ambivilant.

But don't worry. You can still get your vote in. Click here to cast your own vote.

The final resolution passed with 51 senators voting in favor, 17 opposed, and 1 abstention, a 74% margin.

Shortly after the meeting concluded the University released a statement praising the senate's proceedings:

“We appreciate the diligent work by the University Senate in fostering a robust debate on the issue of military engagement and ROTC," the statement read. "As in any diverse, open community there will always be a range of strongly held opinions on such important issues. But as President Bollinger stated after last December’s Congressional vote, the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell offers an historic opportunity for universities to reconsider their own policies as well. As planned, we look forward to sharing the Senate resolution with the Council of Deans and seeking an official conclusion on this matter by the end of the semester.”

Click here for a liveblog of the proceedings.