“Is the Fed’s next decision on rates all about politics?” That’s the way the question is put in a headline in USAToday. It reports that when the governors of the Fed meet next month (six days before the election), the question of what they’re going to do about interest rates will be “clouded by the fog of presidential politics.” No kidding. We’re in the Judy Shelton camp that reckons what the Fed does is “inherently political.” And never more so than in the decades since it has been given a mandate to work not only for stable prices but for full employment.

Not that it’s done a lot of good (it’s brought down unemployment by making millions so discouraged they’ve dropped out of the work force). How we’d like to hear that point made at the third presidential debate Wednesday. It would be a terrific moment for Donald Trump to make his pivot away from the ad hominem attacks that have characterized so much of the campaign and toward the more substantive issues. He has already opened up the question of the Fed, but this is a good time to press the broad point.

It’s not only the Fed, after all, that is losing the confidence of its country’s political leadership. Feature what is happening across the pond, where, in an appalling demarche, Governor Carney of the Bank of England has just leapt into the political fray by attacking the new prime minister, Theresa May, directly. This followed Mrs. May’s comments at the Conservative Party Conference, where she warned that the time had come to start addressing some of the problems that have been caused by the ultra-low interest rates and overly long pump-priming maintained in Threadneedle Street.

Quoth she: “While monetary policy – with super-low interest rates and quantitative easing – provided the necessary emergency medicine after the financial crash, we have to acknowledge there have been some bad side effects. People with assets have got richer. People without them have suffered. People with mortgages have found their debts cheaper. People with savings have found themselves poorer. A change has got to come. And we are going to deliver it. Because that’s what a Conservative Government can do.”

Speaking for the Sun, we thought the Right Honorable Lady was right generous toward the Bank of England. She’s not alone. Mismanagement of monetary policy is part of what has been fueling the outrage being felt by millions — tens of millions — of voters here at America. Mr. Trump gets this down to the ground (he understands interest rates, and a mark of his political courage is that the policies for which he’s plumping go against his narrow commercial interests). All Mrs. Clinton has been prepared to contribute to this debate is to advise the Republican shut up.

Or, as she puts it, to suggest that it’s out of bounds to criticize the Federal Reserve. “You should not be commenting on Fed actions when you are either running for president or you are president,” Mrs. Clinton said after Mr. Trump opened up this issue. “Words have consequences. Words move markets. Words can be misinterpreted.” Mr. Carney didn’t wait for the Labor Politicians. He took out after the prime minister directly, warning her the Bank of England would make its own decisions. Efforts are reported to be underway to defuse the feud.

This is a moment for the central banks on both sides of the Atlantic to remember the citizens whose interests the central banks disfavor also vote. They may not be, here in America, numerous enough to loft Mr. Trump to the White House. But they will certainly be numerous enough to make their interests heard in Congress, even after this election is over. The thing to remember is that it is the Congress that holds 100% of the monetary powers granted to our government in the Constitution and that, as USAToday seems to understand, the Congress is the government’s most political branch.