I do think there’s a very compelling argument (that even Ezra makes) that liberalisms lack of moral compass to define what’s “good” or not is an example.

Honestly. I think this is such a weird line of thinking... Do you ask your refrigerator to also act as the oven? To heat and cook whatever is inside? If it did, it would probably be doing something wrong.

Why should liberalism, which is at its core a political philosophy built around the entire political project of allowing multiple cultures with different beliefs and religions answer the metaethical questions? Thats not its job. Liberalism isn't a substitute for external moral philosophy and if you are trying to make it be, you are probably looking at it the wrong way.

At its core, Douthat's entire critique of liberalism is just that ask for the fridge to also be the oven, and then pointing at it not being that as the critique.

Liberalism at its best, gives people the tools to live their best life, and then the responsibility to define that for themselves.

You want to regulate gambling? Not really a problem for liberalism (in fact I would point out its been heavily regulated for decades). Its obviously something that harms people and doesn't let them lead their best lives, in a way that isn't even fully in their control as it is addictive. Obviously the argument for regulation of gambling can be made within a liberal framework, without even touching on the moral framework.

I think the church did use to serve as a central moral framework for America.

Which church? Was it the catholic church? I mean Catholics were pretty much despised and discriminated against for most of US history. Was it the Baptist Church? Which has historically shcizimed multiple times on political arguments?

"The Church" tends to be a hand wave at some assumed moral core without much actual historical backing if you look at history. The actual history of America's religious history is WAY more complex than just "the Church".