It’s hard to recall from the journalistic pack such a panic as has erupted over news that President Trump intends to name Stephen Moore and Herman Cain to the board of the Federal Reserve. The New York Times warns the Fed could end up under the presidential “thumb.” A “hideous specter,” says the Washington Post. “Sabotage” cries the Financial Times. They all bewail the Fed’s independence.

We’re tempted to say that all this solicitude over monetary policy warms the cockles of what’s left of our heart. Yet the fact of the matter is that none of them — neither of the two Timeses nor the Post — are worried about an independent monetary policy. If they were, they’d have been in the fight for the gold standard long ago. It’s the classical, constitutional way to keep monetary policy sound and honest.

Neither are they worried about the qualifications of either Messrs. Moore or Cain, though the Democratic press has been withering. Mr. Moore has been in the debate over economic policy his whole adult life, and Mr. Cain spent years on the board of — and chaired — the Kansas City Fed. (There’s a school of thought that reckons we need more representation of regional Feds on the board of governors.)

What the uproar over these prospective nominations reflects is the sudden realization that the President could well include monetary policy on the list of campaign promises he intends to keep. Remember? The Paris climate accord, Iran deal, Jerusalem embassy, tax cuts, full employment, rebuild the military, build the wall, conservative judges — can the Federal Reserve be far behind?

This issue erupted in the Republican primary debate at Boulder, Colorado, a year before the 2016 election. Mr. Trump went on to mark the monetary issue by focusing on Communist China’s manipulation of its currency, which, economist Judy Shelton has illuminated, points to monetary reform. Mr. Trump himself called the gold standard “wonderful.” The GOP platform endorsed giving Congress greater oversight of the Fed — and a commission to start reform.

So how can the left intelligentsia feign surprise and outrage over the prospect of nominees like Messrs. Moore and Cain? Mr. Moore has asked all the basic questions, including whether the Federal Reserve is really needed in the first place. He hasn’t fully embraced a gold standard, but neither has he emerged against it. Mr. Cain has emerged as a blunt supporter of honest money based on gold.

“Gold,” the Washington Post’s editorial quotes Mr. Cain as saying, “is kryptonite to big-spending politicians.” No Ph.D. economist from Princeton or Harvard could have put it in language more technically correct. Gold, Mr. Cain added, “is to the moochers and looters in government what sunlight and garlic are to vampires.” Imagine that kind of talk in the Open Market Committee.

We understand that the Federal Reserve is not the right place to enact monetary reform. Rebuilding our monetary system is above the Fed’s pay grade. All of the monetary powers granted in our Constitution are granted to Congress. Every time the Congress has stepped up to the question of reforming our monetary system, though, the Fed has piped up in opposition, guarding the turf it was delegated.

So it would be a step forward to have at the Fed at least two governors who are not so defensive about the effort to reform our system. In the past generation, after all, we have seen the value of the dollar collapse to as little as a 1,900th of an ounce of gold. Even today it lurks at barely more than a fifth of its value at the start of President George W. Bush’s first term. Maybe Messrs. Moore and Cain can do better.

________

Image: Drawing by Elliott Banfield, courtesy of the artist.