I’ve spent five years and more watching the inflationphobes, who weren’t particularly sensible to begin with, descend into shrill unholy madness. They could have reacted to the failure of their predictions — the continued absence of the runaway inflation they insisted was just around the corner — by stepping back and reconsidering both their model and their recommendations. But no. At best, we see a proliferation of new reasons to raise interest rates in a depressed economy, with nary an acknowledgment that previous predictions were dead wrong. At worst, we see conspiracy theories — we actually have double-digit inflation, but the BLS is spiriting the evidence away in its black helicopters and burying it in Area 51.

So at this point I thought I’d seen everything. But no: the prospect that Janet Yellen, a monetary dove, might become the next Fed chair has driven the right into a frenzy of — well, words fail me.

Jonathan Chait has the goods: the New York Sun ran an editorial titled The Female Dollar, warning about a “gender-backed currency”. I kid you not.

And the Wall Street Journal thinks this was such a great analysis that it quotes the phrase, and argues at some length — or, actually, asserts, since if there’s a rational argument there I can’t find it — that the only possible reason people might want Yellen to succeed Bernanke is that she’s not just a monetary dove but a woman.

And they have a point. After all, what possible non-gender case is there for Yellen? That is, aside from the fact that she’s been a highly successful team player at the Fed, has a distinguished record as a research economist on the very issues she would have to deal with as chair, and, according to a recent assessment, has the best forecasting track record of 14 top Fed policymakers. Whose assessment? Um, the Wall Street Journal’s.

I’ve been saying for a long time that we aren’t having a rational argument over economic policy, that the inflationista position is driven by politics and psychology rather than anything the other side would recognize as analysis. But this really proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt; if you really want to understand what’s going on here, the Austrian you need to read isn’t Friedrich Hayek or Ludwig von Mises, it’s Sigmund Freud.