That’s always going to be true. By definition elites are the people who have benefited most from things being the way they are. They may be socially somewhat liberal, if it makes them look good, but economically always conservative. Because being pro gay marriage doesn’t cost them anything. But universal health care would. Hence you people like Nancy pelosi who use socially progressive positions as a cover for deeply regressive and right wing economic and military policy. That’s also why you get the superficial lip service paid to Black Lives Matter, where they will paint a street or kneel in kente cloths while simultaneously doing nothing whatsoever to materially improve black peoples lives. One costs money, specifically costs the elites money, while the other is free.

Economically so, yes. They tend to want to entrench their wealth and not fetter it with taxes on programs that don’t benefit their interests.

Yes. To be a wealthy left-winger, you have to condemn yourself. People sometimes get confused because they watch 24 hour news networks that think H. Clinton is a radical communist.

Our entire current wave is based in 90s tea party astroturfing by billionaires that got out of control when it encountered the militia movement.

so-called "left-wing elites" still favor privatization while public ownership is never in the conversation, so yes.