In light of the first presidential debate’s aftermath, what appears to be a national controversy quickly emerged. What led to mass discontent is none other than Big Bird.
The lovable figure from the children’s program “Sesame Street” entered the political fray amid presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s statements “I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS,” and “I like PBS. I love Big Bird ... I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it.”
While both major parties argue over these claims, this debate about “Big Bird,” and PBS in general, should be a nonissue.
Instead, the famous children’s character serves as a rallying cry for both parties.
“You can debate whether or not there should be funding of public broadcasting. But when they always try to tout out Big Bird, and say we’re going to kill Big Bird — that is actually misleading, because ‘Sesame Street’ will be here,” a “Sesame Street” executive said.
In fact, the federal government funds 15 percent of the PBS annual budget. Cuts to PBS as a whole would be rather minimal.
While funds for the station would deplete, it would still exist. However, we can assume that PBS would strive to increase its fundraising efforts.
While a cut to PBS would not halt the development of “Sesame Street,” it would not significantly affect the federal deficit, as it accounts for only 0.01 percent of the budget. Because cuts to a nonessential program like PBS don’t have a significant impact one way or the other, the only substance to this issue is that Big Bird can serve as an effective political tool for figures of both campaigns.
Republicans, in favor of limited spending, view Big Bird as an image for the necessity of severe budget cuts.
Democrats, in opposition of cuts to essential programming, use Big Bird as a symbol to combat these claims.
The use of Big Bird as a symbol for any respective message is effective.
People, young and old, are quick to identify with Big Bird. His image is nationally renowned because many of us have grown up with him by watching “Sesame Street” as children.
Now, we see Big Bird everywhere — on Facebook and at campaign rallies.
In my opinion, this lovable character has shifted into a symbol of political gridlock.
Instead of focusing on the real issues, we have used him during the past week to maintain negative campaigning by pointing fingers.
This is an ideological issue rather than a policy issue. While Romney uses PBS and Big Bird as an example of cutting nonessential programs, others discuss it as if it is a major crisis. This is an effective use of rhetoric by Romney.
By using the phrase “Big Bird” instead of saying PBS, he can make an argument that almost the majority of the electorate, regardless of party affiliation, can identify with.
President Obama has used him, just as effectively, to criticize Romney, albeit in a humorous manner.
Big Bird allows both candidates to better connect to the American people.
Unfortunately, it seems as if both candidates emphasize the character’s presence for rhetoric and negative campaigning to undermine the opposition rather than make a case of specific policy.
Matthew Schnur is an economics freshman at UF. His column appears on Wednesdays.
