This was a great read and a good synthesis of a lot of conservative critiques that I have been hearing recently. I especially found that idea that the two great manifestations of liberalism---the state and the market---are mutually reinforcing entities that both strive to maximize individualism. The state destroys shared traditions by enshrining rights to individuals, thus granting them license to walk away from such traditions, like an eternal Rumspringa. At the same time, the market destroys shared traditions (and nature) in service of market needs---cultures need to be homogenized to ensure free trade, more and more aspects of life need to be commodified to expand the reach of markets.
At the same time it did seem like liberalism as Deneen construes it is a caricature. Liberalism is not the project of ensuring liberty-as-license for individuals, but rather protection from arbitrary rule---ironically, it is liberalism that is the greatest defender of local communities that Deneen advocates for (think Puritans enshrining religious freedom in the founding of America).
At the same time, the kind of philosophical liberalism espoused by Rawls and Mill would seem to lead to the kind of anticulture that Deneen is so worried about. If the state is neutral to the conceptions of the good, it will forcefully stop expressions of private belief in public space, and it is not clear where those lines should be drawn. (Is the Masterpiece Bakery case about religious freedom or nondiscrimination?)
I like this book because it’s a conservatism that I find a more worthy enemy than classical liberals. I think it’s clear that maximizing individual liberty manifests itself in terrible ways---especially economic liberty---and instead of neutrality w.r.t. the conceptions of the Good, we need to actually articulate a public vision of the Good and work towards that.