But that is not because he is a conservative. That is because he has a super elite background and super elite daily life.

I can't abide by this, old friend. There are several wealthy liberals who were not anti-poor in their ideology, including John Kennedy and (currently) Bill Maher. Moreover, I know many, many ideological conservatives who have less of a pot to pee in than I do financially who hate their fellow poor with a passion and hero worship any wealthy person who speaks the party line; and these same individuals loathe the word "socialist" more than you or anyone else on this board, albeit without having the slightest understanding of the meaning behind the word.

He isn't more out of touch than liberals with the same background are. (Say... Soros)

Maybe not more than certain mainstream liberals, but certainly more so than progressives whose attitudes harken much more closely to their predecessors from the '70s, such as Bill Maher and Michael Moore. Ideology can and often does exist entirely divorced from background.

Conversely, liberals and conservatives alike who aren't elite children are different in their approach to class, and more similar to each other, despite the ideological divide.

For the most part, I have honestly not noticed this in America, and I have noticed a lot. I'm not saying that background never influences ideology; of course it does. But not necessarily so, as the two can exist miles apart. For instance, being a Marxist is relatively unusual for anyone who is American, regardless of their financial or social background; the very concept is considered "anti-American" by the typical person who grew up indoctrinated by American ideology. The great majority of contemporary progressives shy away from the use of the term, even if they use it more or less like Bernie Sanders does (i.e., as a term for "social democracy," or adherence to a more liberal form of capitalist relations). In fact, Sanders himself has shied away from using the term since he began his presidential campaign.