WE WOULD all like very much to pretend that central banks aren't influenced by politics, that election campaigns aren't largely driven by economic conditions, and that there aren't worrisome incentives embedded in the interaction between economic policymaking and campaigns. But we must take the world as it is and not as we would like it to be. Federal Reserve officials typically go out of their way to emphasise that political concerns play no role in their decision-making, however unlikely that may seem. Two recent pronouncements by regional Fed presidents, however, have made the assumed explicit.

Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Fed, gave voice to political concerns in a recent interview with Reuters:

Fisher, who spoke to Reuters roughly six weeks ahead of a Fed policy meeting that many see coming at a critical juncture, said any perceptions that the U.S. central bank could be motivated by political factors are untrue -- but the Fed must guard against any misimpressions. Many economists and financial market players expect that the Fed, when it next meets in mid-September, could decide to undertake a third round of quantitative easing. Any such decision coming just weeks ahead of a showdown between President Barack Obama and presumed Republican nominee Mitt Romney, could be construed as being politically motivated, Fisher said. But nothing could be farther from the truth, Fisher said Monday, noting the stance of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. "I don't believe that's the case," he said. "I know that's not the case with Ben, but I'm afraid that as we get closer to election season, that people in the marketplace or elsewhere might draw that conclusion, and it might come back to haunt us."

The best way to demonstrate the Fed's political independence, in Mr Fisher's view, is to actively take the political calendar into consideration in making monetary policy. The logic is characteristically flawed, but Mr Fisher's statement clearly demonstrates that at least some Fed officials are taking political concerns into account. (Mr Fisher is not, at the moment, on the Federal Open Market Committee; the Dallas Fed president won't be a voting member again until 2014.)

Then there are comments by Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren (now a non-voting member of the FOMC). The Boston Globereports:

Eric Rosengren, the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, is issuing an unusual public plea to his colleagues in Washington, urging the nation’s central bankers to ignore election-year pressures and do more to jump-start the muddling economy. Less than a week after Federal Reserve policy makers elected not to take new steps to stimulate the economy, Rosengren in an interview added his voice to a handful of dissenters, saying the central bank has to act at its next meeting in September to revitalize the economy. The Fed should not worry, he said, if the move is seen as influencing the presidential election. “We don’t get to pick the timing of a global slowdown,” Rosengren said. “If there’s a slowdown and you have an independent central bank, the appropriate response is to act. I think that’s exactly what we should do.”

As Tim Duy writes here, this unusual public plea may be interpreted as an expression of frustration with his FOMC colleagues. It, too, hints that politics is very much on the mind of those making monetary policy calls. In recent months, Fed statements have been perplexing in the extent to which they lay out the case for more action, then maintain current policy. Perhaps the Fed thinks more could and should be done but hopes that the economy will hang in there until after the election, so that the central bank needn't be seen as meddling, one way or another, in the campaign.

Even with these comments in hand, I'm reluctant to conclude that's what's actually going on. The logic of inaction for independence's sake seems too weak and the alternative explanation—that with inflation close to target the bar for new easing is simply very high—too probable.

IF politics is shaping the Fed's choices, however, I wonder if Mitt Romney didn't make a critical error in weighing in against new QE on Sunday. The default position, as Mr Fisher suggests and Mr Rosengren implies, is that intervention in the economy in the months prior to the election could be seen as political meddling on Mr Obama's behalf. To avoid allegations of bias or politicisation, the Fed should stay its hand. Mr Romney, however, has now associated himself with inaction, such that a failure to intervene is now "doing what Romney advocates". This now makes intervention the apolitical default. And therefore more likely.

I'm reminded of the ham-handed attempt by House Republicans to scare the Fed off new action in September of last year. The FOMC seemed to revel in the opportunity to demonstrate independence, announcing a new round of asset purchases the very next day. I wonder if Mr Romney hasn't made a similar misstep. If so, the nation's unemployed should thank him.