Oz

Keith Benson American Economic History 12.13.2007 Professor Guy Pascale Response to “The ‘Wizard of Oz’ as a Monetary Allegory” “The ‘Wizard of Oz’ as a Monetary Allegory”, a celebrated work by career economic historian at Rutgers University Hugh Rockoff, seeks to offer in-depth analysis of the classic fairytale in a historical and economic metaphoric framework. Dr. Rockoff is a renowned authority on wartime price controls, and “free banking”. In addition to his fulltime professorship duties, Rockoff is also a research associate for the National Bureau of Economic Research. And while Rockoff’s essay and credentials are impressive and convincing in their own right, there is contemporary disagreement, debating whether the iconic story/movie was meant to serve a didactic purpose. Rockoff writes, “The book was not only a child’s tale but a sophisticated commentary on the political and economic debates of the Populist Era.” (Hansen 255) Bradley Hansen, professor of economics at Mary Washington College, in his article “The Fable of the Allegory: The Wizard of Oz in Economics”, roundly disputes Rockoff’s assertions concerning the “Wizard of Oz’” message; if there was one at all. In efforts to find consensus between both opposing articles, relevant historical and economic information can be gained. While there may be no definitive answer as whether Rockoff or his detractors are correct, what can be assured is between both ends of this argumentative spectrum, lies an important and overlooked subject in American economic history. In order to creditably move forward in the examination of the validity of Ruckoff or Hansen’s thesis, it is first necessary to understand the context in which the story the Wonderful World of Oz was created. Rockoff suggests L. Frank Baum, author of the

Wizard of Oz, wrote the story in 1899 in response to pressing contemporary economic issues of the time. “The Wizard of Oz conceived over several years, was written mostly in 1899 as a cautionary tale, recounting the ‘first battle’ of 1896.” (Ruckoff 745) During the 1890’s the country was embroiled in economic disarray caused largely by the “Panic of 1893” and even more relevant, the uncertainty concerning bimetallism and gold as the singular standard by which the US Dollar was measured. Largely, this struggle and its resolution was the allegorical and metaphoric lens through which Rockoff perceived the Wizard of Oz. Though Rockoff was largely responsible for projecting this interpretation of the popular children’s story, he was not the first. In 1964, a history teacher, Henry Littlefield, in efforts to illuminate the relevance of the debate over gold vs. bimetallism, looked for possible links between this historical occurrences and the popular story. Prior to the 1960’s there had been no record of any academic, or popular perceptions that the Wizard of Oz was meant to teach anything at all. “Although it is true that many people have come to the conclusion that the Wonderful Wizard of Oz was an allegory of the Populist movement, no one appears to have come to the conclusion before Littlefield did, 64 years after the book was published.” (Hansen 257) Only following Littlefield and Rockoff’s later interpretation of the story, has its perception as a teaching tool gained traction with economists and historians seeking to verify this theory. Ruckoff, in the “Wizard of Oz as a Monetary Allegory”, first seeks to bolster his stance that the tale has a hidden and higher meaning by communicating his belief that L. Frank Baum was a democratic, Populist sympathizer. Ruckoff explains that due to Baum’s mother-in-law being a leading woman’s suffragist, and Baum himself working

for a newspaper in Aberdeen, South Dakota, he likely was a Populist. Rockoff explains that “Baum and his family moved from New York City to Aberdeen, South Dakota, where he viewed at close hand the frontier life that gave rise to the Populist movement.” (Ruckoff 740) Further, Ruckoff quotes L. Frank Baum’s son’s biography about his father which asserts that Baum himself held torches for pro-silver activist and presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan during his midnight political rallies. This would be significant toward understanding Baum’s possible motive for drafting the Wizard of Oz as an epic metaphor sympathetic to the Populist/pro-silver movement. Conversely, Hansen, in efforts to refute Ruckoff’s assertion that Baum was a populist sympathizer, carefully explains Baum may have been much more capitalist and Republican than Ruckoff led on. Hansen explains that Baum routinely, during his stint at the Saturday Pioneer and Western Frontier endorsed Republican candidates, and causes. Moreover, Hansen describes that Baum's exposure to frontier living, and relation to women suffragists would not necessarily be consistent with Populism or its ideals, especially bimetallism. While Hansen does credit Baum for being very pro-women’s rights, as Ruckoff concedes, Baum if truly seeking to use the Wizard of Oz to exemplify his bimetallist leanings, does a poor job exhibiting them. Also, and perhaps, the most referred to pieces of evidence within the Wizard of Oz people believing it serves an allegorical purpose point to is the characters and colors, and how they parallel with some major political actors and references from that time. As has been noted by both Rockoff and Littlefield years earlier, the shoes worn by Dorothy in the written version of the tale were silver – not ruby red as shown in the movie. The yellow brick road leading to the land of Oz, really according to Rockoff, represented gold

leading all the way to Washington where the decision to use gold as the only standard had been finalized by President McKinley in 1896. The letters “O” and “z”, in “Oz” was supposedly adapted from the abbreviation for an ounce; the unit used to weigh gold. Dorothy was supposed to represent the American public; young and naïve. The Scarecrow was to symbolize the western frontier farmer; the Tin Woodsman symbolized the eastern industrial worker lacking individuality. Finally, the Cowardly Lion, Rockoff suggests, embodied William Jennings Bryan, who following his “Cross of Gold” speech never pursued bimetallism with the same fervor in which he delivered the famous speech. Refuting the claims of Littlefield and Ruckoff, Hansen explains away the singling out of these colors and characters. Hansen explains the presence of colors was a recurring theme throughout the story. “Each part of Oz had its own color. Blue was he color of the Munchkins, yellow was the color of the Winkies, and Red the color of the Quadlings. The colors in the book changed as the characters moved throughout Oz.” (Hansen 261) Hansen further explains that Baum, since childhood possessed a fascination with scarecrows, and actually had built his own tin man long before the Wizard of Oz was written. Within the muck and mire of academic debate of whether or not the Wizard of Oz was meant to be an allegory, was the significance of the debate between bimetallism and gold as the singular monetary standard. It is my position that like the Civil War, where the struggle between the agrarian South and the industrialist North (among a host of other causes) led to armed conflict, the similar theme recurred in the 1870’s up until the early 1900’s; this time putting the frontier/agrarian west against the industrialist/capitalist east.

As a backdrop, it is important to understand that following a wave of industrialism that swept the eastern region, specifically the Northeast, tariffs seeking to benefit and aid industrialism was simultaneously enacted. What was gained by industrialist capitalists from beneficial tariffs were to reduce foreign competition of manufactured goods; allowing domestic manufacturers to raise prices. In response, foreign nations placed tariffs on American exports, especially American wheat and grains. As a result, foreign sale of wheat dropped precipitously, leaving only the American consumer to purchase the wheat and grains produced by the western farmer. Supply of wheat increased dramatically as the price dropped simultaneously. While the farmers may have possessed a “life raft” from their struggle in the form of inflation ironically, which would have raised prices for their crops, the Treasury Dept. seeking to reduce the money supply forced deflation by no longer acknowledging the bimetal standard, which consisted of both silver and gold, in favor of gold only. The American western farmer was caught in a double economic bind of low prices for their crops, and a period of deflation - along with a host of weather issues at the time. It was out of this malaise where William Jennings Bryan, a Nebraska legislator, gained popularity and the Free Silver movement was born. And it was believed, resulting from the tumultuous times farmers were experiencing, at least through Littlefield and Rockoff’s interpretation, L. Frank Baum sought to depict and offer the grand solution for the plight of the American western farmer – a return to silver as a monetary standard, through his story. While both Rockoff and Hansen offer convincing arguments whether the Wizard of Oz was contrived to be an allegory for the Free Silver/Populist movement, seems

overall, unimportant. The historical and economic happenings of that era truly are important; and if the “Wizard of Oz” helps explicate those struggles of the late 1800’s, even if unintended, served a valuable purpose.

Works Cited

Rockoff, Hugh. “The ‘Wizard of Oz’ as a Monetary Allegory”. Journal of Political Economy. 1990, vol. 98, no. 4

Hansen, Bradley. “The Fable of the Allegory: The Wizard of Oz in Economics”. Journal of Economic Education. Summer 2002. pps.254-271