I liked the article and found it thought provoking... despite having some things I disagreed with.
Attempting to fight this battle against a toxic political ideology, and the movement it powers, requires better identification/naming. He shouldn't call the enemies of freedom "the left" - they are "progressives." It is important to make that identification so that progressivism can be targeted. So that it can be shown in the proper context of Marxism, one on the main forms of totalitarian ideologies.
He talked about Liberals and it would have been better to distinguish them from the progressives who stole the title "liberal" when "progressive" became a negative, back before it was ressurected in recent decades. He should have said "Classical Liberals." He also tied classic liberalism to the Judeo-Christian framework far more tightly than he should have. In fact, classic liberals were for freeing the state from being ruled by tyrants and churches. ("Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." Denis Diderot) Classic Liberals wanted a secular state.
The article mentions the increasing levels of violence. I think that is a very valid concern, and I think that the ideological divide is going to lead to far more violence. Progressivism will continue to 'progress' towards more and more irrationality and more and more advocacy of totalitarian measures. In the universities, they have taken critical theory (cultural marxism) to such an extreme that they will soon even alienate the professors that spawned them. They are moving not just into areas where philosophosphical reconcilliation can't be found, but areas where reason isn't the foundation. That leaves only violence as the means of resolving differences. This is the thread running through the article that is so important.