Ideologies and political movements don’t just have substantive beliefs, they have styles as well.
Conservatism and the cultural left both engage in identity politics. When a dispute is about not just what we should do, but who we are, things – and language – get heated. Conservatives and the cultural left often use stories to make their case. Stories have dramas and excitement not so easily found in a logical argument. It is not coincidence that many conservative intellectuals are historians.
Classical liberals and social democrats tend to be far more cool and analytical in the way they present themselves. They are better at detaching themselves from issues. They will often use statistics rather than stories to make their case. They are more likely to be economists or philosophers than historians.
Left-wing academics have their own style in a particular form of bad writing. Take this passage from the Smith and Marden article on think-tanks:
The power attributed to the language of the market is indeed considerable, mainly due to its epistemological status. In his book The Fiction of Autobiography, Edward Said evoked the idea of the ‘genuine shadow of truth’ in reference to Conrad’s universe and the imperialism of ideas, which is equally apt in this context. ‘So sufficient is this all-enveloping shadow that one can rest entirely within it, away from any of the common rational forms of human hope or regret’ (Said, as cited in Hussein 2004, 43).
Despite their meaning being far from apparent, given these sentences in isolation no experienced reader of academic prose could fail to guess that their authors would be on the left. I think this is sociological rather than intrinsically ideological in its origins; sometime in the last few decades this atrocious style became not just acceptable but expected in some disciplines (I suspect that French theorists are to blame).
One advantage of the right’s expulsion from the academic humanties and non-economic social sciences is that this kind of self-indulgence was never possible. If nobody could read think-tank publications, think tanks would not survive.