Democratic leaders are negotiating in bad faith, against good policy, and to lamentable results in the current border-wall-funding theater on Capitol Hill.

Set aside for now the realities that President Trump has played his pro-wall poker hand incredibly ineptly, that conservatives in general have badly overstated the relative importance of immigration-related policy, and that the Trumpian Right has cultishly turned “The Wall” into an item of absurdly talismanic significance. Those contentions can be handled in another column.

For now, what matters is that Democrats are refusing to vote for a funding bill otherwise to their liking, and thus shutting down about one-sixth of the government, for the sake not of principle but of cynical politics. They know border control of some sort is an important element of sovereignty. They know physical barriers work. They know Trump’s requested $5 billion is not exorbitant and can be spent effectively. And they at least pretend to believe that shutting down large parts of the federal government actually hurts people.

Other columns have amply demonstrated that many key Democrats have hypocritically changed their positions, without real explanations, on the importance of border security and the utility of walls as part of the mix. They have acknowledged that stopping illegal immigration is important in the fights against crime, illegal narcotics, and terrorism. They have said it is crucial to “get tough” against illegal crossings, and they were right.

Back before the boogeyman of Trump appeared, the argument among serious Democrats wasn’t whether border walls were good policy, but where. There are many spots along the Mexican border where a wall is less practical (if at all) than others, for reasons of cost, topography, or ecology. Democrats said it would be foolish to try to wall the whole border — but admitted that in some places, such as San Diego, walls work.

The total cost for a wall across the entire border is at least $20 billion (and as much as $50 billion).The $5 billion at issue in the current budget fight could easily be spent in areas where almost everybody says walls can be effective. The substantive fight over the next $15 billion-plus could come later. In truth, there is little substance, but only political symbolism, in the Democrats’ fight today.

If Democrats truly believe shutting down one-sixth of the government hurts people, they should compromise to avoid causing such pain. It is they, after all — not Republicans — who say almost all current government activity is essential for civic health.

The obvious solution is for them to offer Trump something on the order of $4 billion for the wall right now but ask that the other $1 billion be spent for expedited processing of, or better acculturation services for, legal immigrants. They could actually try to solve a problem, rather than cynically manipulating the situation for political gain.

The fact is that Trump won a presidential election by attracting enough voters in enough states, perfectly according to the Constitution, while making a border wall the single most recognizable plank of what passed for his political platform. Elections have consequences. There was a time when both sides recognized this, for the greater good. Democrats should do so now.

Give Trump a part of his shiny new wall. Democrats will control the House for the next two years and can deny him any more wall funding for the rest of his term. But for now, for areas they themselves know full well that a wall can be of use in: Provide some money, reopen the government, and help restore the public’s faith in the workability of our constitutional system.