Let's start with the "rich", which I define by the classic "1%" meme perpetuated since the height of the Occupy movement. The rich have their own culture and their own, separate "universe" outside of the rest of the world - it's called "Richistan" by some observers. As an example, how many times have you seen a celebrity or other well-known individual take a commercial airline flight? In all of my days flying, I saw one: Erik Estrada, flying first-class on his way to Chicago. They own, either outright or through shared ownership, their own airplanes, or at the very least, pay one of the new flight subscription services x-thousand dollars per month to fly anywhere, anytime. Add to this the country clubs and private golf courses, the high-profile nightclubs (and the underground ones so "sacred" to them that the commoners have no idea they even exist), the super-expensive hotels, and all of the other plums associated with wealth, and the result is a protective "bubble" surrounding those of the means to live within it. It's the 21st century equivalent of the feudal lord's castle, with the subjects of that castle being the rest of us, the "99%".
The driving force behind this separation is perception of value. The Rich recognize that economic power and political power are one and the same. Money IS power, and power can be monetized. It may be said that this is a simple supply-and-demand argument - the rich have what "everybody else" wants. It sounds like a simplistic argument, and it is - but think about it. This entire mindset informs our current political situation, especially as it relates to lobbyists and their de facto ownership of the politicians with whom they expect favor. Their money is the lifeblood of most campaigns - and it's a weapon to use against those who fall into their disfavor by sending it to an opponent. This is why some politicians describe money as the "mother's milk" of politics, and do so with no irony intended. It also demonstrates why there seems to be absolutely no interest whatsoever in reviving our nearly dead middle class. Why support the existence of an entire economic class who won't support you? The entire concept of a large middle class is foreign to advocates of pure, unregulated free markets, and is viewed with disdain among the elites, because as stated above, economic power and political power are viewed as one and the same by those same elites. A large, economically empowered middle class is a large, politically powered middle class - and their interests are not at all in line with the elites. One can read Russell Kirk or any of the other classic conservative authors to see this dynamic at play.
By contrast, the middle class and lower look at money as a means to obtain for purposes of survival, with maybe a little left over for leisure or entertainment if you're fortunate. The consumer base of most developed economies consists of people in this strata. Without people of the necessary means to purchase the product you are selling, how can you expect, then, to sell anything at all? The elites' answer: globalism. Perhaps there will be fewer of means in my home country, but hey, look at all of those expanding economies and middle classes in China and India, and elsewhere! They'll do the consuming and manufacturing, while we in America and the "developed" world do...what?
The middle class is what stands between the rich and the pitch forks. Conservatives counter, with considerable trepidation, the 1960s - when we had a strong middle class and protests and demonstrations seemed to be breaking out all over. Those conflicts, however serious they were, are a walk in the park when compared to a growing population with no food or shelter - and thus, nothing to lose.
