I posted this article more for the discussion it might start than the actual quality of the article itself, but I think the thesis is slightly different than that. The author approaches it a bit differently than you suggest, arguing that only those with "elite status" have actually even seen it. I don't know, it does seem like the author is saying that the musical is bad, so people who like it are bad while also trying to use that as representation of a more specific idea:

The conservative-liberal D.C. consensus on Hamilton makes perfect sense. The musical flatters both right and left sensibilities. Conservatives get to see their beloved Founding Fathers exonerated for their horrendous crimes, and liberals get to have nationalism packaged in a feel-good multicultural form. The more troubling questions about the country’s origins are instantly vanished, as an era built on racist forced labor is transformed into a colorful, culturally progressive, and politically unobjectionable extravaganza.

What I guess is surprising is that there is near universal praise for it when there seems to be much to critique. It's not challenging or truthful and seems like it has the complexity and depth of an after-school program special. The title of the article is stupid and hyperbolic though.