It was with a palpable sense of urgency that Federal Reserve officials took to the airwaves two weeks ago to make their intentions crystal clear. Everyone from Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen to Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer to New York Fed President Bill Dudley to the normally dovish Gov. Lael Brainard all but pre-announced an increase in its benchmark rate, to be formalized at the conclusion of its meeting on Wednesday.

What changed? Given the federal funds futures market’s refusal to heed the Fed’s nudges and forecasts of higher interest rates for the last two years, a bigger megaphone was probably warranted. But what transpired in February to make March a do-or-die meeting?

A lone voice among Fed officials echoed my thoughts.

Opinion Journal: The Fed Plays Catch-Up

“The recent data aren’t that different from what they were at the time of the January meeting and we didn’t really use the January meeting to set up a March rate hike,” said James Bullard, president of the St. Louis Fed, in a March 3 interview with the Wall Street Journal.

Bullard offered an answer as well. “The one thing that has changed a lot is equity prices,” Bullard said, noting that historically, the Fed has been unwilling to cite asset prices as a reason for a change in interest rates.

By all appearances, our “data-dependent” policy makers are relying on sentiment: on the optimism reflected in stock prices, to be specific.

After a brief dive on Election Night after the outcome became apparent, the U.S. stock market exploded. Expectations that a Trump administration would deliver on its promises of lower taxes, reduced regulations and increased government spending sent the Dow Jones Industrial DJIA, -0.46% up 14% since Nov. 8. The Standard & Poor’s 500 SPX, -0.84% is up 11%.

Stock-market optimism was mirrored in commodity indexes and seems to have fueled large jumps in survey measures of consumer and business confidence. Manufacturing surveys, which are qualitative, not quantitative, but a step above the touchy-feeling confidence surveys, shot up as well, suggesting improvement in the months ahead. (Most manufacturing surveys ask respondents to indicate whether activity in areas such as new orders, production and employment had increased, decreased or remained the same in the past month.)

The optimism among small businesses is particularly noteworthy. In December, the National Federation of Independent Business reported the largest one-month jump in its survey in its 30-year history. The index remained near a 12-year high in January and February.

Market and survey optimism has yet to be reflected in the hard data. First-quarter economic growth is tracking at 1.2%, according to the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model. The bumpy rollout of the American Health Care Act demonstrates that unified government does not mean unified action.

Businesses may voice optimism about tax and regulatory changes, but sometimes promises kept — not promises made — may be a precondition for capital spending. Plans to increase spending on plants and equipment in the next six months remain “historically weak,” according to the February NFIB report.

Besides, measures to restrict trade could put a damper on all that optimism.

The Fed made it clear in the minutes of the Jan. 31-Feb. 1 meeting that it does not plan pre-emptive rate hikes based on expectations of a more expansionary fiscal policy. So that leaves Bullard’s theory of stock prices, which by some measures are overextended.

Still, the exuberant stock market doesn’t explain the urgency with which the Fed dispatched officials to align market expectations with its intentions at the start of the month.

For the past two years, all the stars had to be in perfect alignment before the Fed would pull the trigger — and only then, after an extended period of preparation. Something always cropped up to throw the Fed off course: the U.K. vote to leave the EU; financial market volatility; a stronger dollar; or “uncertainty” about a myriad of things. (I’m actually surprised the Fed committed to raise rates on Wednesday with the Dutch election pending.)

It may be that the gradual increase in inflation has the Fed focused on monetary policy’s long and variable lags. The Fed operates under a dual mandate from Congress: stable prices and maximum sustainable employment.

The Fed has defined price stability as a rate of 2% in the personal consumption expenditures price index. The PCE price index last breached 2% in April 2012, so having a target doesn’t imply hitting it. The PCE price index had risen 1.9% between January 2016 and January 2017, while the unemployment rate has been vacillating between 4.6% and 5% for over a year, in line with most estimates of full employment. Is it a case of mission accomplished for the Fed?

Wages, one of Yellen’s pet markers of the health of the economy, have started to rise. The 2.8% increase in average hourly earnings in February, close to the cycle high, was accompanied by complaints from businesses about the inability to find qualified workers to fill open slots.

Monitoring wages for signs of nascent inflationary pressure is a classic case of rearview-mirror forecasting. (Prices lead wages, not the other way around.) That’s why the Fed would do us all a favor if it discarded some of the platitudes and used Wednesday’s statement to outline its strategy, not just its goals.

We know the Fed is going to raise rates. We just aren’t sure what changed in a short period of time to create a sense of urgency.