Point #1 TL:DR
He is dire in his predictions, and fairly spits out his contempt and anger at the American ruling class. His anger at Republicans is exceeded only by his anger at Democrats. That's what he usually does, and I hope he is overreacting. I hope that most Americans are just not as worked up as the political junkies, and have no intention of getting dragged into any serious violence or even excusing it in others.
There was a time of greater violence in the late 1960's and "revolution" was in the air. I was young, and worried that said violence would invite repression. We thought ourselves a deeply divided nation. Then came disco, and we mostly forgot about it for a while. America solved its revolution problem by ignoring it. Some of the rebels switched to Gramscian strategies, but the fighting seemed to stop, except for people trying to shoot Republican presidents.
I hope that's what we are looking at again.
I would like to draw your attention to two paragraphs early in the essay. (Ed. Early, because I didn't read all that far.) Codevilla is quoting from Thucydides account of Corcyra's revolution in 427 BC, the fifth year of the Peloponnesian* War. He describes how moral actions had deteriorated on all sides in service of the revolution.
The more freely to harm enemies, “words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them.”
“Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defense. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected…even blood became a weaker tie than party….The fair proposals of an adversary were met with jealous precautions by the stronger of the two, and not with a generous confidence…when opportunity offered, he who first ventured to seize it and to take his enemy off his guard, thought this perfidious vengeance sweeter than an open one…success by treachery won him the palm of superior intelligence.”I have mentioned many times the changes in ordinary meanings of words as a tactic to distract and confuse. Religious cults take ordinary theological words and put new meanings into them. CS Lewis asserted that the aim of the Christian should be to take the ancient ideas and put them into modern language. Instead, people were using ancient language to smuggle in modern ideas that the original writers did not intend. He and Orwell were both writing about this at about the same time. We should take notice.
The next paragraph worries me as well. Some Democrats are talking about packing the Supreme Court, and in response, Republicans are saying "You might regret giving Trump that idea if he thinks he needs to beat you to the punch." There's nothing magical about the number nine, but I dislike monkeying with institutional practices that have grown up over centuries.
*I am pretty sure I have never spelled "Peloponnesian" without having to look it up, and look back at it at least two more times. And I didn't know who Corcyra was, either, but I imagine he was important if he got a whole revolution named after him.