Eddie, quality thoughts. One of the elements I look for when thinking through divergent perspectives on contentious topics is who brings up the emotive tones and the rhetorical appeals to authority. The one that does typically, from the perspective of a correspondence theory of truth, is more post-liberal or post-truth and thus typically defaults to some kind of power dynamic to "persuade". Nonetheless, from their frame, they believe they are proving their case just as sincerely as anyone else, given that prove is a synonym for force.

Additionally, when thinking through your two articles, this one and Liberalism is Breaking, you contend that Liberalism is under pressure as a discursive project (this article) and in the other that it is under pressure as an institutional project. This is insightful, as internal dialogue is a means by which institutions evolve. But, if that dialogue is broken (non-overlapping magisterium), then how can an institution... organization remain coherent? It seems inevitable that it would fracture because it is divided against itself.

My point/question/thought is that liberalism as a project held together because most of its proponents held to ontologically similar beliefs, which afforded the project internal epistemological coherence. Take away the ontological grounding, and is it really surprising that epistemologies will begin to vary, even widely, but still try to maintain an equal patina of objectivity?