Is any prevalence in anti-intellectualism merely a (misguided?) byproduct of an increasing disillusionment/disappointment with the capabilities of establishments? For so long I viewed school/college/university as bleak, ineffectual and useless, and thus I considered a wide range of topics to be of little value. Maybe any anti-intellectual trend makes the same error: conflating the topics with their presentation/handling. (Edit: rather, conflating the (apolitical?) methodology of the intellect with the politics of the academic elite that have the deepest claim in the intellect?)
If the academy (broadly speaking) has, in effect, a pseudo-monopoly or a bottleneck toll on the intellect, it makes sense that non-academics (again broadly speaking) would be inclined to oppose the intellect, no?
I'm not arguing that the reasoning is valid, but I am arguing that its an understandable conflation to make, given the way we make associations.
Similar to how someone, who is against monopolies, might have some kind of aversion to princesses because of Disney. Seeing as, I would assume (which is perhaps a misstep), much of the anti-intellectualism proper (as in conspiracy theories) seems to be coming from the crowds that oppose the academic elite (for reasons largely extraneous to intellectualism), it makes sense that they would also oppose the thing that the academic elite have (whatever degree of a) monopoly on: the intellect. The intellect, and, by extension: scientific method, logic, criticism, etc.
Sorry for that mess of a sentence.