The Myth of Left and Right

Recently a client of mine was talking about how he’s become more Conservative in the last few years.  We have been working using ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy) mostly which he has loved (and described as ‘life changing’) and credits with helping him become a lot less despairing and depressed. The main shift he says is that he now focusses a lot more on what he can change (things like sleep and exercise), and makes real efforts to change.

And he said something pretty intriguing that I’d never thought about before…

He said he felt like CBT and ACT work well or align with capitalism and more Right Wing thinking because they put the emphasis more on the individual and taking personal responsibility.  He was very reflective on this because he used to be very left leaning when he was younger.

This got me thinking and wondering if this was true and also wondering if there were any therapies that are or were more Left Wing coded.  He wondered out loud to me whether perhaps psychoanalysis was more Left Wing.

Are therapeutic modality coded in any political direction (Right or Left)? If so, what does that mean for me as a therapist and for clients who may identify as more Right or Left leaning?

While therapy strives to be neutral, many modalities carry subtle ideological undertones:

• CBT and ACT emphasize internal change—shifting our thinking, accepting discomfort, and taking values-based action. They don’t ignore systemic issues, but they don’t focus on changing them either.

• Other approaches (e.g., feminist, psychodynamic, or critical therapies) tend to look outward more—exploring how power, trauma, or societal structures shape our inner world.

In this sense, therapies like ACT could be seen as aligning with more traditional or Conservative values: personal responsibility, acceptance, resilience, and agency.

It raises a broader question: Is therapy about helping us adapt to life, or empowering us to transform it?

I think we have to say that both are valid. Sometimes we need to grieve what can’t be changed. Other times, healing gives us the strength to challenge what once felt immovable.

But there’s another piece I think is key when we think about the Left-Right divide and it’s that the traditional left-right dichotomy is not a fixed, universal framework but rather a fluid, socially constructed narrative. This is something Hyrum and Verlan Lewis argue persuasively in their book The Myth of Left and Right. This binary classification, they contend, often obscures the complexities of individual beliefs and fosters unnecessary polarization.

The Lewis brothers point out that policies considered conservative in one era might be viewed as liberal in another era. For example, In the early 20th century, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt was a major force behind national parks and environmental conservation—causes he saw as tied to patriotism and legacy.  In the 1960s and '70s, the Left were the ones who championed free speech (e.g., anti-war protests, the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley).  During the Cold War, it was the Republicans (typically considered Right) who were more hawkish whereas today in the port-Iraq war era, parts of the Right (eg. Populist conservatives like Tucker Carlson) have become strongly anti-interventionist.

Additionally, in the early 20^th C it was the Right who opposed U.S involvement in foreign wars like WWI and WWII—on nationalist, constitutional, and non-interventionist grounds. Even something like gay rights, strongly associated today with the Left, was originally championed by the Right. In the 1970s and 80s, some libertarian and conservative thinkers supported gay rights on the basis of individual liberty and limited government—not because they embraced progressive social values, but because they opposed state interference in private life. In Australia, it was the Liberal Party (Right) who introduced strict gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre.

When you start going through history, it becomes impossible to really find an ‘essence’ or ‘core’ for the Left or the Right. Nothing – not being ‘progressive’ or being about ‘liberty’ or having a ‘constrained/unconstrained vision’ (see Thomas Sowell) work consistency.  The surprising and somewhat disturbing reality is that there is no fixed ideological essence and that in fact, people pick their ‘team’ much like people pick a sports team to go for.

People think they choose the Right because they love free markets, or the Left because they care about equality. But more often, they love free markets because they’re on the Right, and care about equality because they’re on the Left. A Collingwood supporter might love Nick Daicos because he’s such a good player, but if he played for Carlton, there’s a good chance, they’d view him very differently.  They might go from cheering and loving him to booing and hating him, simply because of the colour of his jersey. This makes no real sense, but it’s what we do with political beliefs all the time.

Since I love psychology and the psychology of how this works, I’ll break it down a bit here:

Political Identity as Team Loyalty

1. Team First, Principles Second

People basically pick a political "team" first—Left or Right— usually based on tribalism (ie. who their friends barrack for or what team will make them feel cool or accepted) and then adopt whatever beliefs that team currently supports. Just like football fans support their team no matter what, many partisans shift their views to stay aligned with their side. For example, a Republican might support free trade in the 2000s, then oppose it under Trump—not because their values changed, but because their team’s position did. 

2. Social Identity over Ideology

Political affiliation functions as a social identity, not an intellectual commitment. People derive a sense of belonging, meaning, and morality from being on "their team" meaning they are often motivated to defend their side, even if it contradicts their stated values.

3. No Stable Philosophical Core

Contrary to popular belief, the Left and Right don’t have timeless, coherent ideologies (e.g., equality vs hierarchy, liberty vs order). Instead, ideologies change over time, and positions get redefined to fit the current needs of the coalition. Just like a football team might change its strategy or players but still retain its name and loyal fans, political sides evolve while retaining support. 

4. Team Rivalry Trumps Truth

People become more interested in defeating the other side than in examining their own inconsistencies. This fuels polarization, tribalism, and “us vs them” thinking. Much like how fans interpret a referee's call based on what benefits their team, political partisans interpret events and facts through a motivated reasoning lens.

Most people think of ideology like shopping at a supermarket. We imagine that people walk into the marketplace of ideas and choose their political positions à la carte, picking beliefs based on reason, principle, or evidence. So you might pick low taxes from aisle 5, environmental protection from aisle 7, Strong national defence from aisle 2, and so on. This is how ideological consistency should work.  But in reality, what happens is you join a team first - Left or Right - then you take the whole cart (!). Whatever’s already in the trolley, you just go along with it—even if it doesn’t all fit together. This is somewhat depressing. But it’s just how humans work. Most political identities are not the result of careful, independent thinking bur rather tribal alignment.

Conclusion

So, are therapeutic modalities politically coded? The answer is ‘Not really.’ One could say that right now, CBT or ACT is slightly coded Right in the West, but in 10 years time, this might change.  This is yet another way that human minds like to simplify things to make the world more manageable and another temptation we need to resist. This perspective can be particularly insightful when considering therapeutic frameworks like ACT. Rather than viewing such modalities through a rigid political lens, acknowledging the fluidity of ideological labels allows for a more individualized understanding of how therapeutic approaches resonate with clients' evolving worldviews.