The faultline running through postlieralism is those who are basically liberal and just want to reform/restrain it a bit, and those who think liberalism tends naturally to these outcomes and can’t realistically be reformed/restrained.

Group 1 think liberalism is basically a good idea but needs moderating; Group 2 think liberalism was always a bad idea which naturally resists moderation

These differences play out in historical understandings - the first group will admire liberalism as being an antidote to oppression, persecution, unjust authority, whilst the second will call this bad history and say liberalism will necessarily tend to exactly these outcomes

The first group may even posit liberalism as an Enlightened attempt to insert reason, objectivity and process into complexity - indeed, the triumph against the epistemic caprice of religiosity - whilst the second group will mutter something about the Vendée and eyeroll

The problem the first group has is their founding thinkers, and no less history itself, tends to contradict them - the problem the second group have is their alternative is often precisely what liberalism always attempted to overcome.

The first group appeal to achievable reform and repair, however unlikely (and, in the view of the second group, self-contradictory); the second group need something closer to (intellectual) revolution, which is only ever likely to happen by unplanned accident as conscious design.

The majority of the post liberal crowd are in Group 1; those in Group 2 are a vocal minority

My guess is it’s a coalition that cannot last. Group 1 think what Group 2 propose is undesirable; Group 2 think what Group 1 proposes is just the same thing they claim to be critical of.

Group 1 will tend to think social conservatism is bad, or should at least be constrained, and will generally share liberal views of progressivism, with certain exceptions; Group 2 tend to be instinctively socially conservative and see this as partly the point of postliberalism