It seems that Pascal's Wager is a particularly difficult example to work with since it involves a hypothesis entity that actively rewards one for giving a higher probability assignment to that hypothesis.

I'm not sure what a good definition of "liberalism" is but the definition you use seems to mean something closer to bureaucratic authoritarianism which obviously isn't the same given that most self-identified liberals want less government involvement in many family related issues (i.e. gay marriage). It is likely that there is no concise definition of these sorts of terms since what policy attitudes are common is to a large extent a product of history and social forces rather than coherent ideology.

I mean, here's a prediction from this theory: we should see a lot of trivial papers published, papers that don't really advance the field in any significant way but merely add to the count of papers published.

Well, nice of you for admitting that you already new this. But, at the same time, this seems to be a terribly weak prediction even if one didn't know about it. One expects as fields advance and there becomes less low-hanging fruit that more and more seemingly minor papers will be published (I'm not sure there are many papers published which are trivial, minor and trivial are not the same thing).