We used to call that "classical liberalism".
The follow-up book, Regime Change, offers some alternatives: https://www.amazon.com/Regime-Change-Toward-Postliberal-Future/dp/0593086902
Maybe our liberal culture will accept some form of pluralism. Still, I think it will be hard for people in a liberal framework to accept less liberalism, so I don't know how realistic an alternative this is.
A post-liberal alternative is, in many ways, a pre-liberal political system dating back to ideas from Plato’s Republic. Liberals trying to equalize the few and many is, at best, a fiction and, at worst, a nefarious, systematic way for the few to exploit the many by shunning responsibility in the name of liberty. Post-liberalism tries to reassert that difference constructively: the “aristo” use their place of privilege to serve the common good for the many.
You're right. Much work must be done to make post-liberal thought practical, but I think it starts from a stronger philosophical foundation than liberalism.
Discussion
Patrick Deneen's argument is that classical liberalism inevitably leads to the radical autonomous individualism, with all its problems, that we see today.
I seem to be missing how post-liberalism differs from classical liberalism. The later never precluded the aristocracy or some concept of personal nobility or excellence leading naturally to human hierarchies.
Another way I've heard it described is that once you view harm as more than physical (e.g., discrimination), there is nothing stopping liberalism from becoming what it is today.
This is also a good explainer: https://youtu.be/ot8Eul-nDU4