A lot of his political popularity is because while he’s rich, the way he speaks is “working class”.
He’s a good example of the difference we’re talking about.
He is not all that much how actual working class behaves. Instead, he is his how middle class imagines working class. And people who vote him are economically not the poorest either. And he is also what poor people imagine super rich to be.
Your statement, worded differently, seems to read "it's high class in low class circles". Are you implying class is only appropriately defined only by those in high-class? I guess I was looking at it as social prestige regardless of who in the social strata assigns it. In other words, if enough 'low-class' people think you're high-class, you're by definition high-class.
"low-class" people would not determine who is "high-class" any more than the "high-class" people determine who is "low-class".
> Being rich and well-connected for long periods ... which can persist even when the wealth doesn't, and continue to confer benefits. Preferring golf or tennis to say, bowling, doesn't necessarily come with a major difference in affordability. But being good at golf might help your career more than bowling
He was literally rich from the day he was born to old age. He was getting those benefits whole his life. He plays golf.
What he is not, is not being good person.