I don't believe there's an anti-intellectual movement in the US.
Anti-pseudointellectualism? Definitely.
Have to study.
The USA is very anti-intellectual. Everything is about practicality, utility, return of investment - ideals that work actively against intellectualism. Nobody wants to learn things because they are "too hard", everyone thinks Greek, Latin, and the humanities are all "useless", etc. As far as the genera population goes, the US is
very anti-intellectual. People don't like to hear "fancy words" or read anything longer than a few sentences. People don't question what they hear in the media or go out of their way to read multiple sources. People equate reading something on the internet as reading source material (provided that internet source isn't a paper or original publication).
I don't think it is fair to make a distinction between intellectualism and pseudointellectualism. A sophisticated enough argument can seem to be pseudo-intellectual but may actually be sound and valid. Likewise, it could just be bunk. You wouldn't know unless you understood the subject well enough to even fully comprehend the argument in question. An
intellectual position would be to dissect the argument and see if it works or not. An anti-intellectual position would be to just write it off as pseudo-intellectualism and cease to think about the problem immediately. Most people, I would venture to say, would choose the latter as they are either lazy, uninterested, or incorrectly equating a discussion with a "fight".
A popular example is quantum mechanics.
Popular authors (Deepak Chopra) like to cite quantum principles to back up some wild new-agey ideas about consciousness or medicine or whatever (See Chopra's "Quantum Healing")<<< pseudo-intellectual
However, 20th century philosophers have cited quantum mechanics in arguments about consciousness that are actually cogent and valid (in that the premises are true, the argument may not be) (side-note: admittedly, other philosophers do this not quite so validly) <<< intellectual (See Derek Parfit's Teleportation problem and the related literature)
You cannot possibly make the distinction about which one is pseudo_int or int because you would have to have a pre-requisite understanding of quantum mechanics in order to do so (in the case of deepak chopra you really only need GC I to understand what he's saying is patently false). Then, both would be imperceptibly different to an ignorant observer. To even make the distinction is anti-intellectual because it claims knowledge you don't have and are not interested in having because (it follows) that you do not deem the knowledge critical to making the distinction.
For clarity:
You can call people pseudo-intellectuals in specific cases where you know why they are wrong and how they are wrong and call them out on it, this would be a discussion and engaging in it would be an
intellectual thing to do - because it is for the sake of the knowledge at hand.
However, calling people pseudo-intellectuals and then not even considering what they are saying or how they are saying it is anti-intellectual.
Calling someone a poofter because of their appearance and then assuming they are only reading in public for your attention is markedly egocentric. Especially if you take some silly pleasure out of pointing that out to yourself, or them. Sure, you might be right some times but what do you gain out of it? What do they gain? Nothing.
Love some, hate some, kill some, hug some.
