HG, you could not be more wrong. Prager talks about the American "cold civil war" every day on his radio show for the same reason I spent three years researching and writing EFAD. We both are trying to point out just how close the left and right are to a head-on collision today, because we want to avoid the violent collision while there is stil time.
Put another way: we are both lookouts on the Titanic, screaming ICE AHEAD! while there is still time to turn the ship.
Of course, some will say, "why are you shilling that book again," or "Prager must want a civil war, he talks about it all the time."
The Captain of the Titanic probably said, "What are those fools in the crow's nest screaming about now? Someone tell them to shut up."
I think what you're reading and registering is a clash between diehard party partisans . . . faction leaders . . . who have a difference in ideology but are still basically Americans merely shilling for their view of what America should be. Prager's admonission seems to me nothing more than an outline of his own political ideology, described as a polemic, not a roadmap towards certain civil war.
Political, legal, and societal remedies exist for all Prager's issues. Civil war occurs when those remedies are no longer available, or once one side determines the point of no return has been passed. I hardly see that dynamic in American politics today. If anything, the rhetoric from partisans has been amped up . . . and I daresay some, if not most, of that amplification is selfishly purposeful.