Recent studies have revealed a consistent liberal orientation in the ethical and political responses generated by most commercial large language models (LLMs), yet the underlying causes and resulting implications remain unclear. This paper systematically investigates the political temperament of seven prominent LLMs - OpenAI's GPT-4o, Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 4, Perplexity (Sonar Large), Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash, Meta AI's Llama 4, Mistral 7b Le Chat and High-Flyer's DeepSeek R1 -- using a multi-pronged approach that includes Moral Foundations Theory, a dozen established political ideology scales and a new index of current political controversies. We find strong and consistent prioritization of liberal-leaning values, particularly care and fairness, across most models. Further analysis attributes this trend to four overlapping factors: Liberal-leaning training corpora, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), the dominance of liberal frameworks in academic ethical discourse and safety-driven fine-tuning practices. We also distinguish between political "bias" and legitimate epistemic differences, cautioning against conflating the two. A comparison of base and fine-tuned model pairs reveals that fine-tuning generally increases liberal lean, an effect confirmed through both self-report and empirical testing. We argue that this "liberal tilt" is not a programming error or the personal preference of programmers but an emergent property of training on democratic rights-focused discourse. Finally, we propose that LLMs may indirectly echo John Rawls' famous veil-of ignorance philosophical aspiration, reflecting a moral stance unanchored to personal identity or interest. Rather than undermining democratic discourse, this pattern may offer a new lens through which to examine collective reasoning.