• by Philip Rosenstein , Staff Writer, January 30, 2017

Responses to President Donald Trump’s travel moratorium executive order illustrate the growing chasm between two major sociopolitical factions in 21st-century America.

Many see a de facto ban on Muslim travelers from the seven countries designated by the executive order — and it is shaking the cage of an already unstable start to Donald Trump’s presidency.

From the spontaneous protests at airports around the country, where even some legal permanent residents were prevented from entering the United States, to the more organized rallies held in New York City and Washington, D.C. among many others on Sunday, many Americans are enraged by Trump’s actions.

Conversely, per Breitbart, Trump supporters are calling the progressive response: “a superb example of media-magnified shrieking about fascism, bleating about ‘white nationalists,’ howling about “religious persecution,” false invocations of the Constitution, and theatrical sobbing on behalf of the Statue of Liberty.”

These vastly opposite reactions to this order strike at the core of a growing division in America’s social fabric — exemplified by the tension between “America First” and America for all.

It is difficult to see how the two sides can reconcile these differences, particularly as Trump and his surrogates dig in and appear poised to expand the ban to other countries. Or so they claim.

Countries where Trump does business — Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates — were excluded. Commentators repeatedly questioned why Saudia Arabia and Pakistan, leaders in global terrorism, were left off the list.

Democrats, progressives and even some Republicans oppose the ban for its religiously infused xenophobia, its seeming uselessness and unconstitutionality. For many, it up-ends what makes America great, it’s desire (though often untrue in practice) to include rather than ostracize.

Republicans and conservatives declare the order isn’t a Muslim ban, that it has its genesis in designations made by the Obama administration. President Obama's restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel. Trump insists his edict, which is far broader in scope, will help deter or prevent terrorists from entering the country. Worth noting: Neither of the attackers in the San Bernardino shooting would have been affected by the new ban.

Potential future policies put forth by the Trump team will only serve to exacerbate the chasm growing between two large ideological sections of the American electorate. The stark differences in their approach to human dignity, human rights and, above all, the Constitution, produces what Alexander Hamilton feared most: Putting party before country.