Ultimately I’m also just crassly speculating, but I’d say you’re probably right. In an environment where the only currency is speech and the only profits are clout and lifestyles, why would they produce something fundamentally hostile to liberalism and able to challenge it? Then they’d get more friction and for no benefit, because it’s not like changing things was on the table to start with. Performatively opposing liberalism can still be rhetorically beneficial, but fundamentally they are still frequently bound to very liberal sensibilities (see the “anarchist” in this thread who only believes no one can be made to do anything).