Leithart on a new book about post-liberalism:

Disappointingly, Kelly doesn’t acknowledge, much less address, the fundamental problem with Rawls: What and who defines what counts as “reasonable”? Who makes up the rules the umpire enforces? When do speech or religion or assembly cross into the territory of un-reason, and who patrols that border? Those questions formed the wedge that pried open skepticism about liberalism in the first place. I suspect “reasonable” is more or less equivalent to “liberal,” which means Kelly’s solution is basically, “Steady as she goes.” Against Post-Liberalism doesn’t advance the debate, but circles back to leave us right where we started.