Expanding their attacks, many longtime critics of President Trump are accusing him of “moral failure.” Their claim is that his remarks following the Charlottesville, Va., mayhem failed to sufficiently condemn neo-Nazis and KKK wannabes.

While I believe Trump is being unfairly accused of praising white supremacists, he is certainly guilty of a fool’s errand in trying to draw fine distinctions among those on the right in the aftermath of the death of Heather Heyer. His disjointed, off-the-cuff delivery in a rowdy press conference in the lobby of Trump Tower compounded the impossible and gave license to those inclined to see him through the glass most darkly.

Still, morals are in the eyes of the beholder, and although I won’t argue with the “moral failure” chorus, there are other issues that also matter.

Those are the issues I find more compelling than rhetorical ones, and it is because of them that I’m not throwing in the towel on the Trump presidency.

Broadly speaking, these moral tests fall into two categories: Economic and national security.

They are policy questions, but what makes them moral is the degree to which they help and protect Americans of all races. The calculus is rough: If 100 million people benefit from a policy, I count it as more moral than a policy that benefits 10 million.

It’s also a matter of who benefits. If a policy only makes the comfortable more comfortable, that’s not as moral as a policy that expands opportunity for those left behind by previous policies.

And growing the economic pie so more people can participate is more moral than merely redistributing the existing pie, just as a government committed to individual liberty is more moral than one that restricts personal choice in the name of fairness.

On that score, Trump’s economic policies, those he campaigned on and those he is trying to implement, have a high moral potential. His appeal to the middle, working and underclasses, many of whom legitimately feel betrayed by their government and both political parties, largely won him the presidency and revealed a deep rift in the nation.

His victory was a repudiation of Washington economics, which doubled the national debt while choking growth. Food stamps became easier to get than good jobs.

Despite Trump’s many missteps, the course correction his victory represents remains right for America because the claims his voters have on the rest of us are still as legitimate and urgent as any other demand for government attention.

If Trump’s policies on trade, taxes, immigration and regulations lead to good-paying jobs for more people in the private sector and the rejuvenation of the nation’s industrial might, that will be a greater good than, say, expanding the bureaucracy by adding more mud-puddle investigators to the EPA or more educrats to dictate bathroom rules in public schools.

Similarly, on matters of public safety, Trump’s campaign and his actions so far hold great promise to help people in two areas.

First, his plan to build up the military is essential to counter the growing threats against America and Western civilization. The steady stream of terrorist attacks in Europe, including in beautiful Barcelona last week, must remind us again that violent jihadists will show no mercy if we give them a similar foothold here.

Trump’s vows to tighten refugee vetting and borders and wage a ruthless campaign against terrorists everywhere they threaten us are consistent with core American values. To deny that is to suggest that the Constitution is a suicide pact with our enemies.

Contrast Trump’s security policies with those of Barack Obama. The former president denied the link between Islam and most terrorists, and helped pave the way for the rise of Islamic State by prematurely abandoning Iraq.

Because of their impacts, those choices can be seen as immoral. The same is true for Obama’s policy of cutting the military with a clear intent of restricting its capabilities during a time of war. The rise of other powers, especially Russia and China, were abetted by his choice of weakness.

Then there is Iran and North Korea. It is beyond obvious that Obama’s policies with both have made the world a far more dangerous place as nuclear weapons are spreading to countries that promise to use them on us and our allies. Those policies are potentially moral failures on an enormous scale.

The second security issue is combating domestic crime. Again, border control, deporting criminal aliens and supporting law enforcement are policies that aim to save innocent American lives.

On the other hand, frequently denigrating law enforcement and praising anti-police groups while the murder rate rose in many cities was backwards at best.

Although Chicago was Obama’s adopted hometown, the city had more than 4,000 murders while he was president. If the federal government did anything to stop the bloodletting, it was a well-kept ­secret.

Without doubt, Trump has much work to do to earn the nation’s trust. But the case is strong that his policy choices and actions so far have the potential to help more people in need than those of his predecessor.

Symbols blas has ‘left’ alone

Readers are not taking kindly to Mayor de Blasio’s vow to remove “symbols of hate” from city property. Donald Morris calls him a “clown” and writes: “He should begin at the FDR Drive, since FDR imprisoned Japanese-American citizens during the war, then close the British Consulate since we fought King George for our freedom. Washington Square Park would be next, since Washington had slaves.”

Frances Kahn calls the mayor a “hypocrite” and says: “He can honor Oscar López Rivera, Fidel Castro and his Nicaraguan comrades, but takes umbrage at American historical figures. Statues don’t hate. Plaques don’t demonize. People do.”

And Jim Soviero draws on another totalitarian figure: “Now we have Mayor Mao enforcing his own cultural revolution.”

Belated ‘call’ of duty to ax loafer

The Post’s exclusive report on a do-little spokesman for the courts was an excellent piece of journalism, and catching the hapless flack, David Bookstaver, through butt-dialing recordings of his boasts was a delicious comeuppance.

But perhaps most instructive for taxpayers was the speed with which Bookstaver’s bosses fired him the moment the story was published. Paid $166,000 a year, he’s been showing up for work as little as two days a week for 18 months — and his bosses had no clue until The Post broke the story? Come on.

Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin (R-Troy) said it best: “Somebody over there knew about this and let it go. Whoever was supervising him should be fired.”

Amen.