Thomas Sowell answered this question a couple decades ago. I think if you go from “A Conflict of Visions” and make the leap to Jonathan Haidt and “The Righteous Mind” you can figure out why those people that tend to be more critical and less appreciative are on the left.

My personal theory is that society is just a scaled up version of the fundamental human social unit, the family. And the left and right are the political mother and father of society. They’re an ideological version of the mythological king and queen. But they don’t line up exactly with sex, just as personality doesn’t line up exactly with sex, or belonging to left and right doesn’t, or belonging to the confined or uncondined visions doesn’t.
And experience can also affect your position. How much you’ve been mothered or fathered, how much you belong to one or the other or are attached to one or the other, whether you missed out on one or the other, whether one or the other was abusive or ineffective. There is a continuum of how much we ourselves identify with the mother or father in our own approach (how much they belong to us), and there is a continuum of how much we identify with them as our parents or rulers (how much we belong to them).
Thomas Sowell would also be a good source for a discussion of why belonging to certain “structurally” favored groups is not sufficient for the development of capital (or success in general), and why being excluded from them is not sufficient to prevent the development of capital (or success in general). Things just aren’t as simple as mere group belonging. Distribution may be affected by those structures, and distribution certainly isn’t nothing, but it’s far less a matter than production. And the classical virtues identified by virtually all cultures prior to our as the source of effective production remain the primary seat of such productive capacity.
In all these discussions, the missing premise is relativism. It’s doing the ideological heavy lifting. And the departed theory whose space it has filled, that used to provide similar explanatory power, is virtue. Because we assume one and have not the slightest idea of a proper theory of the other, all the current theories are consequent.

Jordan Peterson characterizes this ancient theory of value as competence and reciprocity, the qualities that confer moral status and produce positive practical results. The ancients simply called them virtue. And yes, people often tried to counterfeit those goods or steal or covet or cheat or control them. But they at least believed in them. They believed that certain ways of being in the world had some not-totally-arbitrary connection to how your life turned out. They conveyed inherent benefits.

Structural social mechanisms existed in all the societies of the past to promote the things that conferred status and punish the things that robbed you of it. Why? Because on the whole you wanted a maximization of status across your whole culture, because life was hard and you needed other people, and you were in competition with other powerful cultures (as well as natural structural challenges and dangers). And you had an innate moral, as well as practical, duty to seek and promote virtue.
The key fact to realize is that those social structures didn’t create power or privilege (unless they were false and unstable), they merely recognized or conferred status. And status didn’t produce power as an arbitrary mechanism, it attended it. Virtue produces power, not arbitrarily but inherently and necessarily, through its alignment of the walker with the path, the map with the landscape, the capabilities with the demands.
It’s a hard argument to make convincingly because we know people are false and degenerate and dishonest and abusive and hypocritical. But they are also good and faithful and brave and hardworking and capable. We seek the good while always being confused, distracted, cheated, and distorted by evil. Both extremes have always existed, and justice hasn’t always been perfectly served to either, especially in the short term. And so it’s been easy for people today to become cynical about the values that societies past and present have pressed upon us.

But although it’s in the nature of all human constructions to be prone to abuse and falsity, that’s not their nature or purpose. That’s not what makes them work. That not what gives them the power they do have. And people have always been punished by God or by the universe in the long run for such falsehood and abuse. The point of these structures, however prone to misalignment and capture they may be, is toward protecting and preserving and cultivating the sources of real power, which cannot be created by fiat.

You can’t make someone worthy merely by assigning them worth. Emphasis on merely. And that’s the real problem with the whole woke ideology. Its argument, that social structures and how they have been arranged are merely structures of arbitrary oppression and prejudice that assign power like its just out there to be handed out to whoever can make a rule saying they get it, is simply false. That’s not actually how the world works.
The mistake that’s being made is a confusion of the structures and mechanisms that direct people toward and distribute status with the mechanisms that produce it. One is contingent on the ability of a society to recognize and appropriately direct people toward sources of power, the other is a non-contingent relationship between certain ways of being and the resulting natural production of power. It isn’t that distribution and structures for controlling status mean nothing, it’s that they don’t mean everything. And they’re not the most important thing.

It’s also worth noting that the amount of power you would have to grant someone to perfectly control and eliminate errors of structure and distribution is more than enough power to create total tyranny and ruination (and that has been the historic result). That’s another thing Thomas Sowell pointed out. You can’t make people virtuous by force. That’s one of the great lessons of religious history. But irreligious people and religious people alike keep forgetting it