The most important conclusion, in my opinion, is this one:
"there is a great deal of hostility toward [systematic and disciplined inquiry] by people who feel their values threatened"
This is the most widespread and most damaging anti-intellectual mindset in our country today. People do not take the time to understand their own values, what makes them so, and are too stubborn to flip-flop when evidence emerges or changes significantly.
That's the conclusion that "intellectuals" will feel most smug about, but the truthful version doesn't speak well of them.
"Intellectuals" have a nasty habit of believing that their conclusions are more grounded in science than they actually are. (For example, the existence of AGW doesn't actually lead to any policy, let alone a specific one.) Moreover, their "it's science" belief gives them unwarranted confidence which they turn to rage when they're questioned by their "inferiors".
Intellectuals also think that their expertise means things that it doesn't. For example, they're sympathetic to the idea that the best chess player should be president of the chess club.
On the other hand, that it threatens/opposes traditional values doesn't automatically imply that it's worth doing, any more than something being traditional meaning it should be exempt from revision.
Anyone who equates liberals=intellectual or conservative=anti-intellectual hasn't bothered to swallow the real bitter pill of the article: the idea that liberal cultural relativism is no less anti-intellectual than religious fundamentalism. Sorry for the mouthful :-)
"there is a great deal of hostility toward [systematic and disciplined inquiry] by people who feel their values threatened"
This is the most widespread and most damaging anti-intellectual mindset in our country today. People do not take the time to understand their own values, what makes them so, and are too stubborn to flip-flop when evidence emerges or changes significantly.