This paper discusses anti-intellectualism in the United States from a rural viewpoint, defines "ideology," and questions whether the psychology of gifted education is an ideology. Fear and loathing of intellectuals are identified with the working class, a view that distorts the role of intellectuals. A rural view of anti-intellectualism is presented that sees "intellect" as a social construction, cultivated and husbanded (or exploited and depleted) over time and generations. Because of intellect's social nature, the common good is wrapped up with stewardship of the intellect. This nexus of social construction and cross-generational legacy means that teaching and learning that care for the intellect must center on a generosity now anathema to American culture. Knowledge today is secretive; there are laws against sharing it. The interests that construct and market American culture are the same interests that increasingly direct the work of schools, and that also misdirect our perspectives on anti-intellectualism, not to mention intellect. Ideologies are defined as constructing the worldview of some "socially significant group." The psychology of gifted education does not constitute a worldview, and teachers of gifted children, much less psychologists of giftedness, are not a socially significant group. The psychology of gifted education is better understood as serving an ideology, not constituting one. The emphasis of gifted education is on ensuring economically successful lives for gifted kids rather than cultivating intellect for the common good. As in rural education, the aim of gifted education is to convince the most talented students that their future lies elsewhere than in their class or place of origin. The ideology that ensures the success of this aim appears as if from nowhere, out of the worldview of the class whose ideology it is. (SV)