David Harsanyi

Another letter from two dozen experts -- including Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Congressional Budget Office director, and Stanford University professor John Taylor, the man who designed a monetary-policy formula on interest rates used by the Fed -- laying out concerns went ignored.

If these concerns had been simply political posturing, it would have been one thing, but CNN reported that even behind closed doors, Fed policymakers had "contentious" arguments about what they saw as a "controversial" plan.

Yet in this cloistered world, at least one of those with objections and skepticism about the Fed's policy and its ability to boost the economy voted with Bernanke in the name of institutional solidarity.

That sounds pretty "political" to me.

Now, the argument for Fed autonomy is based on the importance of monetary stability. But to the columnist, it seems that the Fed is causing more unease, unpredictability and concern among investors and citizens than ever. Once the Fed instigates volatility, doesn't the argument against political intervention dissipate?

Politics -- however ugly and despicable it gets -- is the best way for us to sift through these concerns. If politics is good enough to decide war, health care and education policy, it's good enough for the Fed.

David Harsanyi

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of "The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy." Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi.