I've been thinking the same thing recently. I'm in conversation with a friend of mine who's much more aligned to the right and our philosophical conversations route their way around consistent logic in order to arrive at certain assertions about "reality".

Much of the reasoning is about what it opposes and where the error lies in the "other side" (nearly always a strawman) rather than a positive argument. Where there is a positive argument, it's logic doesn't consistently apply to other analogous areas. It's often a justification rather than a commitment to a reasonable principle or idea.

To be fair, wisdom isn't reducible to a set of rules or principles. It's a weighing of values and priorities and accounting for the impacts and implications.

I suspect there is something to the notion that consistent reasoning has a "liberal" bias in its nature. Whether this means there's more wisdom in that reasonableness is another question all together.

For sure I think part of the problem would be my suspicion of how these tools are being trained. If they’re hiring conservative philosophers to weight the value of tacit knowledge, then great. But if they’re just mashing the “only two genders” button, or like scoring up articles about immigrant crime, as I suspect they are, they the question is, circumvent that process enough, and I wonder if it bleeds into the reasoning process.

To be honest I don’t think an LLM that more accurately represents this kind of reasoning would actually be more representative, per your observation, I’ll say plainly I don’t think the types of people on the right who are most likely activists in this area are doing so because of a passion for different types of reasoning. I think it specifically does desire to advance positions without needing reason.