Criticism of the merits of post-liberalism aside (there are many), I do not think it is beyond the pale of inclusion at a place like @ISI. One can surely be opposed to post-liberal influences within the conservative canon without indicting an entire institution for inviting its foremost thinker, I.e. @PatrickDeneen. ISI is the forum for all respectable conservative views. That said, any institution that shuts the door on “boomercons,” “right-liberals,” “neocons” (SCARY) is doing themselves a huge disservice. @ISI—and @ModAgeJournal for that matter— is great and enduring because it was an incubator for conservatism no matter the strain. It was lose all of that if it is siloed—no matter “what time it is.” The correct answer is to be willing to include post-liberalism just as much as the willingness to include Frank Meyer’s Fusionism, Russell Kirk’s communitarianism, and Irving Kristol’s Neoconservatism. Is that currently breadth of intellectual diversity reflected in @ISI today? I’m not sure. But purging one strain for the sake of the other is probably not the answer—and I’m assuming that this is something that both the “Old Right” and “New Right” will both find not much comfort in. Neither are innocent.