The wall. Say those words and you need say no more. There is only one wall on America’s mind.

It was even the protagonist in a White House reality show. The TV ratings were boffo!

Candidate Donald Trump vowed to build the wall on the Mexican border if elected, and has had only minimal success. The migrant caravans from Central America ­refocused attention on its absence at key crossing points.

But the wall has grown into something larger than itself. It is the ultimate symbol of Trumpism to both supporters and opponents.

To supporters, the wall, combined with better trade deals, is synonymous with America First. The promise to build barriers for much of the 2,000-mile border is key to Trump’s plan to end decades of mass entry by illegal immigrants, some of them violent, and stem the flow of narcotics.

The president believes national security is not possible without border security and border security is not possible without the wall. History says he’s right, though legal changes also are needed.

To Democrats, the wall symbolizes an anti-immigrant agenda that some call racist. Nancy Pelosi calls the wall “immoral,” even though walls already exist at various points along the border.

Democrats, including Hillary Clinton when she was in the Senate, supported walls and backed expansion as part of a large immigration package, but the open-border movement is surging in Pelosi’s party. Besides, with Dems taking the House and prosecutors determined to nail Trump, the growing impeachment movement won’t allow the president any policy victory.

Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are thus adamant that additions to the wall aren’t necessary and offer their support for just $1.4 billion in government funds for maintenance and added security.

Trump, who sent the military to provide border assistance, swears he will shut down the government if he doesn’t get a deal for $5 billion in wall money by the end of this week. Both sides believe they have the political advantage in the standoff — but both can’t be right.

Perhaps there is a third way, one that would provide the money and keep the government open.

Let the people who support the wall pay for it — directly and voluntarily. That’s what a number of readers suggest.

They were responding to a letter I published last week from a man named Nolan Thomson Hare. He wanted to know how he could help fund a barrier, asking, “Can you please give me a note about where I can find a campaign organized to collect money from the general public?”

I didn’t have an answer, but asked for suggestions. The response was quick and enthusiastic, and here are examples.

“I just said to my wife this morning that someone should start a GoFundMe site for the wall,” said reader Robert Zorcik.

“It seems that the taxes we pay are not going to be spent for our border protection by Chuck and Nancy and a number of Republicans.

“Shame on them! Let’s get it built!”

Jack Murray was blunt and creative. He did the math and came up with this calculation: “If the 63 million people who voted for Trump each pledge $80, we can build the wall.”

Mike Triunfo is also ready to support a GoFundMe effort. “All someone has to do is start and I guarantee money will flow in like the thousands of illegal immigrants bum rushing the border,” he writes.

Priscilla Sprague is on board, too. “Do you think it is possible?” she asks. “There are many I know who would love to start this campaign.”

Other readers had other ideas about possible sources of cash for the wall.

“Please let Nolan Thomson Hare know that funding could easily come from a federal tax on marijuana,” writes Ronald Gibberman. “President Trump just needs to get cannabis out of the federal schedule of controlled substances, thereby opening up true legality to the states.”

Christopher Garofalo spies another potential pile of money, ­writing:

“Presently there are about $5 trillion in individual retirement accounts. My suggestion would be a check off box on the federal tax return to designate a portion of required minimum distributions be used to fund construction, tax free for taxpayers.”

He also wonders if it would be possible for people to withdraw funds from retirement accounts before the mandated age of 70 to be used specifically for wall construction.

“It would be a WIN/WIN for the government and the taxpayer,” he writes. “A patriotic tax free gesture, minimum increase in the national debt and a possible bipartisan solution to a vexing problem.”

All those ideas are useful, and there are no doubt others. Whatever the direct mechanism, I find the suggestion of a People’s Wall intriguing. If nothing else, it certainly keeps faith with the spirit of the Trump revolution — to shake up Washington and both parties.

And if Congress won’t secure the borders, then it is necessary for the public to step in. It would be a modern and critical twist on the Founders’ ideal of self-government.

Where do I send my check?

The left turns on de Blasio

The Putz is feeling the heat — and this time it’s from former allies.

Mayor Bill de Blasio’s Friday radio rant was the political equivalent of Rodney Dangerfield’s “I don’t get no respect” shtick. Except de Blasio was serious in bemoaning a lack of love and credit from progressives, including the New York Times.

He wants recognition for criminal justice changes and even the disputed Amazon deal, saying that getting 25,000 or more jobs “is progressive.”

Circular firing squads are generally entertaining, and this one is no exception.

De Blasio never had much support among other groups, and if he loses the left, he’ll be a very lonely man.

Then again, it’s reasonable to ask why it’s taken so long for progressives to catch on. The quality-of-life decline across the city has been obvious, as is the fact that the mayor doesn’t give a damn.

And with three years left in his term, it’s scary to imagine how much more he can damage New York.

Hateful Mika shows true self

Mika Brzezinski’s gay slur against Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is, unfortunately, par for the course on the hateful left. The MSNBC anchor apologized for calling him President Trump’s “butt boy,” but she should do more.

As I have written, Trump haters reaching for the ultimate insult often choose gay references. It’s a curious — and telling — habit for those who claim to be liberals. Know them by their slurs.

For her part, Brzezinski might try searching her conscience to figure out why the nastiest thing she could think of was homophobic. An honest confession could be, as liberals love to say, a teachable moment for her fellow haters.