They've only seen evidence of an inherited preference for political activity (voting). Is this what you mean by "political views"? It sounded like you were saying genetics is linked to whether someone is a Republican or Democrat (or is politically aligned with either). Here's what the wikipedia article you cited actually says (emphasis mine):

Additional studies showed that genes did not play a direct role in the choice of a political party, supporting a core finding in the study of American politics that the choice to be a Democrat or a Republican is largely shaped by parental socialization.[12] However, other studies showed that the decision to affiliate with any political party and the strength of this attachment are significantly influenced by genes.[13][14]

In other words, the only link they've found is tied only to how politically active you are, not a predisposition to any particular side.

I'm mostly speculating, but it seems more likely to me that we'd evolve to be flexible enough to fully populate a bell curve distribution along the conservatism-progressivism axis without genetics letting that get skewed significantly. In other words, even families, clans, and small communities probably need a healthy mix of conservatives and progressives to function well, and large groups composed of hyper-conservatives would probably fail (for lack of adaptation) just as quickly as large groups of hyper-progressives would (for lack of caution), which is what you'd get if genetics played a large role.