What Azimov purports is absolutely true. I have argued that exact point multiple times on this site. An anti-intellectual movement began publically in 1983 with then President Reagan's re-election committee and became the backbone of the GOP since then.

On to the second point. St. Sinner's assertion that anybody criticizing a policy or a problematic cultural proclivity that underpins a large segment of the American experience means that we are anti-American and pro-Russia (we reserve that stance for this President) is preposterous and totally fallacious. We went through this specious and hurtful argument in the late 60's and early 70's with Vietnam. The intellectually challenged claimed (John Birchers and Republicans) that because we opposed the policy connected to the Vietnam conflict, that we were somehow anti-American. It was preposterous then and its preposterous now. Your turning this into a binary choice, "for all of it or for none of it" is shear folly and ludicrous.

Instead, we see the potential for a better America by recognizing that we have faults and weaknesses. That a large segment of our society chooses to ignore fact and reason (bolstered by the influence of fundamentalist Christian dogma) does not diminish the country and culture, rather says we are capable of being and doing better.