heteconomist.com has a post on MMT's openness and political neutrality. See A Clarification on Political Openness.
Heteconomist: "I prefer to see MMT as an open framework (basically an understanding of the monetary system and national accounting) within which – or out of which – various policy approaches could be developed and pursued."
I’m no expert, but I decompose the monetary component of MMT into chartalism and endogenous money. These ideas are so old… you can go back centuries to find the origins of chartalism in Locke and Berkeley (money as a ticket, agreement, or sign). Endogenous money’s roots traces to the banking school of the 19th century. MMT doesn’t own these individual ideas… they are diffused into the general body of economics.
There are no intrinsic reasons why the ideas of Locke, Berkeley, and the banking school need be associated with a particular political slant.
The chartalist version of Locke/Berkeley’s token theory of money surely appeals to big government types on the left and right. This is because it finds in the all-powerful state the basis of the entire monetary system.
But you can have endogeneous money + Stateless Locke/Berkeley token money. The political form of this, on the left at least, would be social credit and the cooperative banking movement. On the right it would be some form of free banking.
So in sum, I wouldn’t idealize MMT as being a neutral super structure on which to drape your policy prescriptions. There is politics at the core of the chartalist rendition of Locke/Berkeley.