Well I would say that anti-intellectualism has always been a part of every culture. I mean, the early scientists and philosophers were often ostracized or murdered by those in power who felt threatened by their ability to explain the world around us and the evolution of human thought.
However, I would argue that after the institution of public education, and the growth of the middle class in societies, we began to enter a period of enlightenment in which objective truths and science began to be respected to some universal degree, notwithstanding holdouts who were being left behind. In the U.S., this reverence for knowledge and facts likely grew with the increasing achievements in fields like medicine and engineering, and likely culminated with the Space Program, which was revered intensely between the 1960s and 1980s.
Now, if you consider the difference between the period of enlightenment and the 1990s into the 2000s, I would say the primary distinction is that there was previously some concept of "gate keepers" or sort of "high priests" so to speak, which were generally highly respected journalists, celebrity scientists, and other such professionals who were recognized and trusted by the general population. This makes sense to some degree, because every person in America is not, for example, a nuclear scientist. So if there was some important question regarding nuclear technology, the general populace would say "If highly-regarded nuclear scientist X says that we need to pursue Z course of action, we should trust him/her."
However, with the rise of the internet and breaking down of the gate keeping functions of journalism and other forms of disseminating information, we have entered an age where any individual can declare themselves an expert. So, for example, an extremist radio host can declare that he has superior knowledge on nuclear technology to an actual nuclear scientist, and said radio host will have millions of followers who will believe this to be true. They will say that the nuclear scientist is somehow involved in "fake news" or some kind of conspiracy involving "black helicopters" or some such. So now random radio hosts or similar individuals are able to build up these huge followings that are simply cults of personality, and there are many that are growing, and they can claim to have all of the knowledge of the world on all subjects, and they will be believed by millions of people.
Now, say that a deranged celebrity reality TV personality like that declares that he is running for president and starts to go on the campaign trial, making all kinds of outlandish statements and ridiculous claims that have no basis in science or fact, but because of the growing cult of personality, he now has amassed millions more followers and manages to become elected as President of the United States. Now he has the keys to all of the gates, which are no longer being manned by any universally respected figures...
Perhaps ultimately the marketplace of ideas will somehow reverse that trend. But, perhaps not... perhaps the warnings given by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Souter are just beginning to come to fruition:
Well I would say that anti-intellectualism has always been a part of every culture. I mean, the early scientists and philosophers were often ostracized or murdered by those in power who felt threatened by their ability to explain the world around us and the evolution of human thought.
However, I would argue that after the institution of public education, and the growth of the middle class in societies, we began to enter a period of enlightenment in which objective truths and science began to be respected to some universal degree, notwithstanding holdouts who were being left behind. In the U.S., this reverence for knowledge and facts likely grew with the increasing achievements in fields like medicine and engineering, and likely culminated with the Space Program, which was revered intensely between the 1960s and 1980s.
Now, if you consider the difference between the period of enlightenment and the 1990s into the 2000s, I would say the primary distinction is that there was previously some concept of "gate keepers" or sort of "high priests" so to speak, which were generally highly respected journalists, celebrity scientists, and other such professionals who were recognized and trusted by the general population. This makes sense to some degree, because every person in America is not, for example, a nuclear scientist. So if there was some important question regarding nuclear technology, the general populace would say "If highly-regarded nuclear scientist X says that we need to pursue Z course of action, we should trust him/her."
However, with the rise of the internet and breaking down of the gate keeping functions of journalism and other forms of disseminating information, we have entered an age where any individual can declare themselves an expert. So, for example, an extremist radio host can declare that he has superior knowledge on nuclear technology to an actual nuclear scientist, and said radio host will have millions of followers who will believe this to be true. They will say that the nuclear scientist is somehow involved in "fake news" or some kind of conspiracy involving "black helicopters" or some such. So now random radio hosts or similar individuals are able to build up these huge followings that are simply cults of personality, and there are many that are growing, and they can claim to have all of the knowledge of the world on all subjects, and they will be believed by millions of people.
Now, say that a deranged celebrity reality TV personality like that declares that he is running for president and starts to go on the campaign trial, making all kinds of outlandish statements and ridiculous claims that have no basis in science or fact, but because of the growing cult of personality, he now has amassed millions more followers and manages to become elected as President of the United States. Now he has the keys to all of the gates, which are no longer being manned by any universally respected figures...
Perhaps ultimately the marketplace of ideas will somehow reverse that trend. But, perhaps not... perhaps the warnings given by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Souter are just beginning to come to fruition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok-sYRpLsrc