What a ridiculously-worded, (mis)leading question. I don't even know where to begin.
Then please, begin.
I would if I knew where.
But, seriously, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by putting "elite" in there as if to say that all modern liberals are "elites" (hint: false, and if that's not what you mean then you have a false dichotomy right off the bat), or that modern liberals don't care about the top things (again, very false), or that only "elites" care about the bottom half (
still false- whether you're looking at old liberals or modern non-elites), or really the silly level of pigeonholing going on here in general (different people care about different things, even within the umbrella of "liberals" of course).
As for the topic, I'm going to answer HP since I believe that elitism is inherently illiberal and should have no place in any left wing party.
Most of the ideas that the OP mistakenly credits the paternalistic neoliberal owner class with are Freedom Ideas though.
Obviously we have pretty different cultural backgrounds but I would certainly affirm that your second sentence is spot-on. I will quibble with the first sentence insofar as I believe rather strongly that anti-intellectualism is a greater danger, both historically and today, than elitism. While the two are certainly not antonyms
per se I find that a lot of particularly dangerous and potent anti-intellectual movements have hidden behind a mask of "populist" anti-elitism, and thus pretty badly tarnished its brand. Obviously this is not a universal.
Poll
