It’s a label useful for making people hostile to people better educated than they are. It’s a pity, because one should be trying to emulate smart people rather than sneering at them, but sneering is lazier so it’s an easy sell.
I’m pretty sure the code for Jews is “*eastern *liberals”.
The Clintons are liberal elite, since they hail from the midwest/south.
In contrast, Patrick Buchanan (who was born in DC, went to private Catholic schools in DC, and private Catholic Georgetown in DC, and was nicknamed “Mr. Inside” when he worked for the Nixon White House [take a guess where?]) is a man of the people.
I guess I’m the lone dissenting view in this. Or at least, I’m the lone dissenting view who sees it as an allegation of implicit hypocrisy rather than of merely being “out of touch.”
To break it down, the natural counter to the term “liberal elite,” if you believe the term is meant as a pejorative related primarily to extraordinary wealth and advanced education, is to point to the extraordinary fortunes and Ivy League educations of your Bushes and your Romneys. If the argument were strictly an argument against wealth and education, then that would be sufficient to at least negate it as an argument for your prototypical arch-conservative over your classic “liberal elite.”
But if, as I believe, it is meant to suggest that the liberal elite are hypocrites, then you can’t simply negate it by reducing it to the absurd, you must directly refute the assumptions that underpin the argument (which probably have something to do with a belief in the efficacy of trickle down economics, the idea that unfettered capitalism is the best and only way to run a “free country,” and that the government should function only to provide a safe haven for the same). That’s what I think “the other guy” really means when he throws around the term liberal elite as a pejorative.
Other guy says, “Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are just out of touch liberal elites and so have no business running this country full of good, honest, hard-working folks like me and my audience.”
You reply, “Oh yeah? Well what about the Bushes, and for that matter what about you, mister syndicated talk show host with a six-figure income?”
Other guy snaps back with, “Hey, my problem isn’t with people working hard and making money, I’m all for capitalism. What me, Bush, and my viewers have in common is we all believe that if someone works hard, they deserve to succeed and to make money and ultimately achieve the American Dream ™. The ability to pass that wealth on to the people we care about is yet more motivation to work even harder. What you and your liberal elites want his to have us all living in shitty public housing, with the government controlling every aspect of our lives and taxing us into mediocrity so that a bunch of welfare queens can get buy for nothing.”
You say, “No, we just want a social safety net, so people who fall on hard times—”
Other guy interrupts with, “Oh? Well then why don’t you give to charity? I bet you could give me—and to worthy causes—if you weren’t already getting taxed so much. I mean, look at Bush the Elder: he donated to cancer kids. Uncle Joe, Bernie, and Elizabeth Warren just want to raise taxes so they can force you to pay for inefficient government programs that THEY choose, and in the meantime I don’t see them living in public housing or donating their money to charity. Nope, they’ve got posh New England homes on top of their DC town houses. They refuse to live the life they would foist on the rest of us.”
/dialogue
The term “liberal elite” is, in a sense, an accusation of class-treason levied by a capitalist against a socialist, but of course they can’t actually call it “class-treason” or refer to the so-called liberal elite a “class-traitor” because those are socialist terms, not suitable for use by a committed capitalist.
You’re putting way more thought into it than people railing against the “liberal elite” expect their audiences to, I speculate.
Right. That’s why it works as a pejorative for their audience but not for me. QED. 
Can’t help but wonder, if deciding we can and should decipher and libsplain what is behind the notion of “liberal elite” and why it’s wrong… makes us an example of the liberal elite?
Thomas Sowell’s book Vision of the Anointed gives a good idea of what a liberal elite is and why they are so dangerous.
Ironically, this sounds exactly like the question/type being referred to by the OP.
I think the word “ironic” is being used as an excuse to dismiss any response that doesn’t buy into this “liberal elite” crap. Defending their position-that’s just what I expect the Liberal Elite to do. How ironic!
If you are going to see any response that doesn’t agree with the premise as “ironic”, what’s the point in conversing about the matter?
Can you give us a hint what they are and why they are dangerous?
Glad I wasn’t drinking! I would have done a ‘spit-take’!
I have always understood liberal elite to include wealthy liberals, liberals in academia, liberals in media/Hollywood.
Every group that doesn’t agree with the author’s ideas are part of an “elite”-the Media Elite, the Liberal Elite, the Political Elite etc., and all those supposed crises that the “Elites” say they are trying to solve are artificial-created by the “Elites” to keep them in power. All attempts to defend, explain or deny are evidence that he is right, as is refusing to defend, explain or deny. This well isn’t just poisoned-it is radioactive.
Some of the answers thus far, especially yesterday, were basically: “Conservatives have elites too.” Sure they do, but that isn’t exactly an answer to the thread/OP.
I think we can break it down to a more simple version.
The Elite are those who think they know better than the “others”. How Republicans use the term is very simply the “liberal elite” that think they know better what to do with ‘your money, your taxes, and your wealth’.
As Bone explained already, most of the recommendations by the Elite are all on subjective terms.
While you don’t hear much run of the Elite being wrong about Global Warming, you might hear of them being wrong about how to best go about fixing it.
Pretty much all policies positions that have subjective terminology can be. It isn’t that the underlying facts are wrong , it is only when trying to determine the best approach to fixing it that takes some of those liberal elite off rail, and go so far as to say “we know better than you” so just trust us.
Yes. Will it be an answer you find satisfactory? Not a chance. But, in essence, naive or disingenuous power hungry or social approval seeking folk that are largely insulated from feedback from first order effects of the counterproductive yet superficially compassionate or noble policies they advocate. Anyways, there is a book you can read it should only take about 4-5 hrs.
So… would you (and that book you read) say that the so-called “liberal elites” are hypocrites?
That’d be one property. But the converse isn’t true. I’d also argue that the hypocrisy isn’t the danger. The danger is the systematic insulation from and disregard of feedback from the consequences of the counterproductive policy.
Policies such as…?
(Here’s your chance for a deep dive into nuance.)
What’s the point in this particular thread? It would just turn into a debate about that particular policy or set of policy when the question was about the term liberal elite.
But I can’t resist and this isn’t really a fault of liberal elite but it’s an example of policy that sounds sort of good, if you don’t give it much thought, but is dangerous and counterproductive. The policy is asset forfeiture. It is arguably unconstitutional and factually a factor in corruption in law enforcement and the judicial system.
One that is a fault of the liberal elite is the counterproductive support of unions for federal employees. Another is the support of rent control. Another is the support for minimum wage. Another is the support for quotas. Another is the support for social promotion and erosion of standards in schools. Ugh! I can’t stop.
For a 4-5 hour read, the book I referenced is quite good. Even if you disagree with 90% of it getting an insight into how other people think is very valuable.