Minority ideologies always get painted as their villains by the majority who wants them to go away. Communism is bad because Stalin is bad. Anarchy is bad because the unibomber is bad.
There is a version of communism that says that people should live in a local community that helps people who need it. As long as someone who doesn't want to live that way has the reasonable option to leave, this is actually pretty hard to object to.
There is a version of anarchy that says that all laws and taxes should be at the local level and furthermore that some localities might then choose not to have any, or only the most basic ones like a prohibition on violence. It's almost the same thing -- pretty hard to object to when people have the option to exit.
What they have in common is that they can't exist when you have a central government de facto prohibiting them. There might be some real efficiencies in a commune that has its own doctors, but that doesn't really work if everybody there still has to pay twice the cost of their own community's doctors in Medicare taxes. You can't have much of an anarchist collective if the feds are still arresting anybody who tries to sell pot brownies or break DRM so they can repair their own tractor.
So people have been looking for ways to shed the yoke of central power for a long time. The US was practically founded on it, both in terms of why the revolution was fought and how the constitution was laid out, but the forces of centralization have been hacking away at those foundations and doing what they can to destroy the "laboratories of democracy" of Brandeis for a long time now.
Is it really that surprising that people were excited about a then-emerging opportunity to potentially take some of it back?