President Trump made the right decision in delaying his state of the union speech until the government is fully open for business. No rush on that head, as far as the Sun is concerned. The Democrats can keep the government closed as long as they decide to. Good for Mr. Trump for acknowledging though, that the House has its perquisites, even when it’s under the control of the Democrats.

The important thing about the Union’s State speech, though, is not when or where it’s delivered but what the president says. He’s already past the mid-point of his term, and we, for one, are not in the mood for another speech on the wall, clear as his mandate may be, nor for more boasts about his tax cuts, magnificent as they are. We’d like to hear him address head on what has made our politics so parlous.

This would mean addressing the constitutional conundrum at the heart of our crisis. It stems from the original compact of our federalist system. Ostensibly elected as a populist, Mr. Trump was handed up to power not by popular vote — he lost that — but by a decision of the states. It’s no coincidence that the congressional camera that has stuck with him is the one that, in the Senate, represents the states.

Therein lie the roots of the resistance. Mr. Trump may have won the presidency fair and square. We understand that he contends that he could have also won the popular vote, had the constitutional system made doing so the priority. We’d still like to hear the President address the state of the union in constitutional terms, even if Mrs. Pelosi & Co. are too bitter to hear it at the moment.

How does the President intend to dial in the Democrats and the majority of the voters who didn’t vote for him? Full employment is a major achievement, but the mid-terms suggest that it, in-and-of itself, isn’t enough. Full employment combined with the shutdown of the federal government may be an opportunity to downsize the federal workforce, but that needs to be well-explained.

We thought the deal Mr. Trump offered — the Wall plus hope for the Dreamers — would have been a terrific start. Mrs. Pelosi’s predecessors, like Tip O’Neill, the American Spectator noted, “would have grabbed Trump’s compromise offer, loudly declared victory, and proceeded to run like Hell.” There are, though, other matters about which Mr. Trump could start courting the Democrats.

Like foreign policy. In our own hemisphere, we have just recognized an anti-Maduro government in Venezuela. In the Middle East, Iranian aggression has precipitated in Syria open warfare between the regime in Tehran and Israel that could yet erupt into a general war. In Asia in February, President Trump is due to meet the North Korean communist, Kim Jong Un. Britain’s Brexit deadline looms March 29.

If the water’s edge is where politics are supposed to end, could these crises offer a chance for a start at political concord? Particularly because, with the departures of Generals Mattis, Kelly, and McMaster and Secretary Tillerson, Mr. Trump is finally unobstructed by his own aides. The fact that the state of the union speech could be a long way off yet, only underlines the logic of finding a way to dial in the Democrats on some of these major questions.