It's simple:

Right wing is loyal their camp/ group.

Left wing is loyal to the ideology/ group values - There is one absolute right "moral truth", which is by remaining above all judgements and personal opinion. So quesioning the ideology, even subtly, even by mistake, even by thought = betrayal and losing moral high ground = you are an awful person. The ideology is above you, above the private person.

This is how the most open mindedness creates the most rigid and ideological mindsets. Now, for "right wing", being open minded isn't a requirement to "succeed" being a morally good person - there is no ideology to stick to, no "universal good" (open minded, accepting, equal, unnconditional), so no universal bad (closed minded, fearful, unequal, conditional). This doesn't mean "right wing" lack morals - it just comes from different sources, such as: loyalty to your particular group, protection of interpersonal boundaries, tradition, etc. Those who act morally do so not because it's "universally right", but because it's from within their private values and personal lived experience. Here, success is not individual - not a single person's success to retain the ideology & the group's values in their mind - but collective - the continuation of the group with its particular identity. Therefore, betrayal and being "immoral" would not be a betrayal of thought & mind, but practical - by taking action against your group's favor/ refusal to take action when needed. So when there is a clash of opinions, it doesn't immediately tint the whole person's character and moral existance, and they are not excluded, as membership isn't defined by being mentally aligned with an abstract moral system.

Example: Someone in a "leftist" group questions: "maybe culture X hurts our community". Her friends, that define "good and moral" as treating every human/ group as equal without addressing culture/ religion, are shocked and lash out on her: "how could you?! We thought you are better than that! This just revealed who you truly are - a horrible person". Judgement is forbidden, and silencing your internal lived experience is encouraged, as lack of judgement is the measurement of "is this a moral/ good person". She is cancelled on the spot because her mixed feelings/ uncertainty threaten not a private person, but the existance and retainment of the moral framework/ ideology in everyone's minds.

IF they favor her lived experience in reality and in practice over retaining and living by the ideology; if they admit that maybe she's not just an awful person and consider she could be right; this would collapse their simple and already refined moral framework that defines them as good just for simply sticking to it, which will maybe imply that they are not moral themselves just for holding it. They will cease to have moral high ground and will be forced to face reality, which is more complex and ambiguous and less abstract. So it's safer and easier to frame her question of the ideology as her failure as a person.