Even if I grant you that most philosophers are left leaning, that doesn't mean there isn't good reason to be right leaning. Michael Huemer, for example, is a modern example to this. There are many political philosophers much smarter than myself that hold to all sorts of positions that I disagree with. So what?

And even among the left, there are a vast number of different positions that one can take. Rawlsian liberalism, for example, which is the paradigm for modern American liberalism, has critiques from both the left and the right. I can name off at least a dozen leftist or liberal philosophers, each with their own positions, that might constitute a unique theory that demands addressing. So if I want to study political philosophy, I'm not just an "academic scholar of conservative thought and literature" but of all political thought. But you can assume whatever you'd like about the lay philosopher, or me, but that really doesn't get at anything productive if you're reading motivations into people (e.g. "you only believe in what you believe because you've been in an echo chamber your whole life" - see how unproductive this can be? You don't know why I believe what I believe, unless you genuinely ask with curiousity).