On Remembrance Day, Corbyn and Trump gave opponents the chance to criticise their actions

In the lead-up to the Armistice centenary commemorations, there have been all sorts of debates about the meaning and nature of war remembrance. Has the poppy become politicised? Does remembering war dead somehow promote militarism? Do commemoration activities have nationalist overtones? At times, these discussions have obscured the realities – the horror of war; the futile losses – that remain, or should remain, at the heart of the matter. Dignified remembrance of conflicts past – with a view to encouraging peace in the present and the future – is still important. It may, indeed, be more important than ever.

A hundred years on from the end of the war that was supposed to end wars, commemorations around the world have demonstrated that Remembrance Sunday still has a particular power to unify nations and peoples. Political opponents have put aside their differences for a moment; we should cling to the hope that they might see the possibility of doing so for longer.

Inevitably there have been some critical noises: The debates about how best to remember those killed in conflict are not quite concluded, even in the silence of commemorative reflection.

In particular, Donald Trump caused eyebrows to be raised by his decision to miss a visit to a US cemetery in France, apparently because of bad weather. The White House said the conditions caused the presidential helicopter to be grounded, and that it had not been possible to arrange alternative transport in the time available. It is notable that the president also decided against attending the Paris Peace Forum, which is being led by his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron.

By contrast, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was present at a wreath-laying ceremony at the Cenotaph, yet came under fire because of his appearance. Some argued that his choice of coat made him look “scruffy”, while others criticised his small poppy pin.

The condemnation of Mr Corbyn felt somewhat unfair. He attended the event with other political leaders, he laid a wreath, he showed due solemnity. To suggest that he was demonstrating a lack of respect simply by wearing a sombre jacket with a hood instead of a traditional overcoat, is faintly absurd.

Nevertheless, we live in an age when “the optics” matter. Even though that may be unreasonable, Mr Corbyn is fully aware of the fact – and he knows that his opponents will use any opportunity to call into his question his character. If an election were to come in the next six months, you can bet your bottom dollar than it is moments like this which the right-leaning media will recall as they snarl at his credentials as a future prime minister.

As for Mr Trump, his failure to fulfil a longstanding commitment is much harder to excuse. It is all the more surprising given that backing for America’s military – and approval of the nation’s role in past wars – is, broadly-speaking, a key driver of the president’s support base. It does, however, serve to confirm (if confirmation were necessary) the degree to which Mr Trump’s presidency is about his own whims. He will no doubt brush of the criticism directed at him; or dismiss it as some variation of “fake news”. Being in power helps in that regard.

Still, some might recall that Hillary Clinton attended a 9/11 memorial event in 2016 despite having pneumonia. Her near-fainting in the aftermath was seen by Mr Trump’s camp as a sign of weakness; quite what that makes Mr Trump’s inability to make it through the rain to visit the resting place of dead American servicemen no doubt depends on your political point of view as much as anything else.

In the present age of bombastic partisanship, when politicians seek to project strength through firm actions, indignant self-righteousness and sometimes plain old lies, dignity is somewhat out of fashion. It is, however, a valuable political characteristic which will – we must hope – make a comeback sooner rather than later.