President Trump’s recent trip to Britain and Normandy brought north many stark contrasts. Contrasts between the way most people behaved during the WWII years and now.

Given the number of years between then and now, there should be differences — of course. But the nature of some of the contrasts ought to give us pause.

This was not a political trip. Trump brought no armies of officials to negotiate. This was primarily a state-to-state visit. As evidence, we saw the Queen of the United Kingdom sport her tiara and polish off her best dinner silver. Royal family members donned their silly uniforms and fake medals. This is the routine on state-to-state occasions.

Our president was in the UK to underscore the countries’ historic links. He was in Normandy, obviously, to pay tribute to the brave soldiers who stormed its shores 75 years ago — and to say to the world that we do not forget them or forsake their sacrifice.

If you followed the reporting you saw, of course, a handful of the survivors yet alive, shrunken within their old uniforms. You saw film clips of troops wading ashore. You saw bodies strewn by the hundreds on those bloody beaches.

You read accounts of the war, with its horrors and victories. You read and heard again of the unity of purpose that forged a mighty war machine to smash the German armies.

If you study those years, you will know how most Americans and Brits certainly knew who our enemies were. You will know there was widespread patriotism among the people — broadcast wide by a patriotic media. You will know our leaders could depend upon extensive support from their people — despite political differences.

You will also know how welcoming the Brits were of the support from their American cousins.

What contrasts we see today.

Although this was not a political trip, much of America and Britain’s big media carped and flailed at President Trump. His political enemies cried out for his imprisonment — as soon as they could find a crime to justify it. They rattled on about his new hairstyle and Melania’s fashions. They imagined slights from some royals.

Big media focused on the modest demonstrations and Trump blimps in London. As if they were more newsworthy than the purpose of an American president’s visit.

The Mayor of London openly slimed the president, who slimed back. Parliament’s leader of the opposition insulted the president. He joined a public demonstration against the leader of the UK’s best friend. A stupid move. Trump returned the favor by belittling him.

In contrast to the unity of purpose of the war years, today we have tumult. We are vomit-deep in this age of insult. Politicians, celebrities, and the media take every opportunity to degrade Trump and themselves. One of them claimed he was using the events for political purposes. Claimed the rows of crosses of the American dead were mere props. Some scorned the openly proclaimed prayers — called them partisan.

Unity? In utter contrast to the war years, we today have no unity on the most important issues of the day. Such as whether we should or should not have a border.

We cannot agree on whether or not we should protect Israel from annihilation. Or whether or not China is out to severely damage us. Or whether we should quail or do battle against Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. Or whether or not climate change will destroy us. Or whether it even exists beyond natural change. Proponents try to squelch the mere debate of this.

In this country, celebrities and the media celebrate the banning of the sorts of prayers our leaders once led. They celebrate the flag burnings and insults launched against our founders and the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution they created.

What label will this era earn? The Age of Carping? The Era of Insults? The Years of Disunity? The Contrast Years?

How would the folks who lived during the war years react to the contrasts that have come about? From what they wrote, said, and did in their times; I doubt they would appreciate or applaud them.

From Tom…as in Morgan.         

Tom Morgan writes about political, financial, and other subjects from his home in upstate New York. Contact him at tomasinmorgan@yahoo.com, read more of his writing at tomasinmorgan.com, or find him on Facebook.

You may not be ready for next year’s presidential and congressional elections, but in political time, they’re coming up fast. Even politicians who aren’t running for president are crafting their stump speeches. Which means that at some point you’re almost certain to hear someone announce, sternly, “I. Will. Not. Compromise.” And if you’re there in the crowd and agree with his or her position, you may even join the applause.

 That is understandable, but let me tell you why, far from applauding that line, I shy from politicians who use it. In a democracy, being able to compromise — and knowing how — is a core skill for governing. Shouting “No Compromise!” may fire up the crowd, but it’s a recipe for failure when it comes to getting things done in office.

 In fact, it was a core skill even before we had our current system. Pretty much every sentence in our Constitution was the product of compromise, crafted by people who felt passionately about the issues they confronted yet found a way to agree on language that would enable the country to function.

 It is true that any legislative body needs members who set out the vision — the pure ideological positions — as part of the public dialogue. But if they’re allowed to control or dominate the process, nothing gets done. When pushed, most politicians understand that cooperation and working together to build consensus have to prevail in the end.

 So why doesn’t it happen more? Because compromise is not easy, especially on issues of consequence, and especially today, when the country is so deeply divided and polarized. Even the word itself causes disagreement. To someone like me, it’s a way forward. To others, including a lot of voters, it’s a betrayal of principle.

 Once you do compromise, you’ve always got the problem of selling the result to others. Sometimes, in fact, you have the problem of selling it to yourself. When I was in office, I often found myself second-guessing my own decisions. Did I give up too much on principle? Was there another path to the same goal without compromising? Maybe I didn’t give enough? Is the compromise that emerged actually workable?

This last is an important question. Any politician seeking to forge common ground with others has to weigh whether people — voters and colleagues outside the meeting room — will be willing to accept or at least tolerate a compromise. I have certainly encountered politicians who have walked out of efforts to reach agreement because they felt they couldn’t sell it. Or, even more common, politicians who support compromise as long as it’s the other side that does all the compromising.

 The thing is, politicians never control the political environment in which they’re working. They have to seek the best solution given the cards they have been dealt. They can’t dictate who is on the other side of the negotiating table, or the political climate in their community.

 This makes the kind of people you’re dealing with supremely important. As a lawmaker or officeholder seeking to move forward and faced with colleagues who may hold very different views, you need counterparts who know they need to make the system work and are willing to be flexible. In a way, you’re hoping for politicians who take into consideration the broad concerns of the entire population, not just those who support them or voted for them.

 In Central Park one day during WWII, Judge Learned Hand told an assembled crowd, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias.” That is also the spirit of our representative democracy, and we need politicians who embrace it.

 So when Americans complain about Congress not getting anything done, I have limited sympathy. Congress struggles because it has members who don’t know how to compromise, are afraid to, or don’t want to compromise. And those members are there because we sent them there. In other words, we share the blame.        

Lee Hamilton is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at the IU School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years, representing a district in south central Indiana.