Hang on there. Leftists have consistently been more supportive of education than people on the right, at every level. Both sides support personal growth, but in rather different ways: leftists tend to take a therapy-and-mental-health approach while the right favors take-on-tough-challenges-and-succeed-or-fail-get-up-and-try-again. (I think the evidence is that the right is more correct about where the primary problem is at this point--the left may have been correct 30 years ago, but the pendulum's on the other side now.) The right cares a lot more about prosperity in rhetoric, but in the U.S. the record suggests the opposite by many metrics (GDP, unemployment, etc.): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_presidential_party, possibly because they go by what wins elections not by what works.
Both the left and the right count on support from easily-swayed portions of the U.S. electorate that could be undermined by particular pro-stronger-citizen measures. They each, whether cynically or inadvertently, tend to impede the flourishing of people in specific ways.
That is: stronger people threaten the power of both the left and the right. It just depends who gets strong, and how they get strong.
The left gains a lot of support from the perception that things are unfair, and from people who want a fish and don't have one. The left is quick to blame those people with fish for taking all the good fishing spots rather than being good at fishing. The left will supply a sardine to you now and then, but honestly isn't very good at actually teaching people how to fish. You'd think, for instance, that Democrats would be huge advocates for vocational schools where people learn skills that allow them to be successful. The support is there, sorta, but it's timid.
The right gains a lot of support from placing loyalty, honor, faith, individuality, etc. above intelligence or collective well-being. They'll scream about the need to save unborn babies, then turn around and cut funding for early childhood education and nutrition--which is really hard to come back from fully. They'll play the tribal insularity card even when it hurts everyone involved (e.g. https://www.npr.org/2024/04/26/1242236604/florida-economy-immigration-businesses-workers-undocumented).
When people want to retain power, they often start to behave in an ugly fashion, and if one steps back and looks clearly, you can find plenty of instances across party--and outside of politics, too.
People succeed when they are nurtured to the point where they can take on increasingly difficult challenges and best them. The right fails on the first step, the left on the second. (The left also fails on the first step by trying to sprinkle nurture on like spice instead of building it deeply into communities; and the right also fails on the second step by being happy to kick people when they're down rather than help them up to try again.) They both talk about freedom, but the left knows better than you what to do with your money, and the right knows better than you who you are and how you should act.
I really wish we could take the best of both outlooks. Too often it seems like we end up with the worst of both. I think the main reason is that people fail to confront the bad ideas on their own side, preferring instead to take the socially easy but largely futile tactic of criticizing the other tribe where they have no power to effect change. And so polarization and ideology run too much of the show, largely unconstrained by how things actually work.