Reducing public education is arguably the most effective strategy for acheiving both those goals, so, is it really that surprising that they have a long history of opposing the scientific consensus?
But the campaign against science was informed by the previous decades’ obsession with evolution.
It also damages their credibility when they cross the line from "here are the epidemiological facts" to "here are the appropriate tradeoffs between economic stability and acute illness prevention". The latter is not a question that an epidemiologist is any more qualified to speak to than anyone else. Those are political decisions.
They do the same for global warming. The nature and extent of anthropogenic climate change is a question for scientists. But they have all also latched onto the conclusion that global wealth redistribution is the only solution. Again, they are laundering their scientific expertise into political authority. I more or less think that the scientific process moves us to toward better understanding, but the collective political opinions of scientists should not be mistaken for science.
When the experts are abusing their status to pursue political ends, then it's no surprise that the people they seek to politically vanquish put up a resistance by attacking that expertise.
It‘s people deciding stopping the spread of COVID-19 isn‘t as important as protesting for their civil rights.
You can‘t dismiss the science just because people have different priorities and decide to act against it because of that.
I also wouldn‘t say it‘s hypocrisy at least not by the protestors and scientist.
Maybe it’s hypocrisy by the media because they didn‘t state that they agree or disagree with protests because they think another issue is more or less important than the pandemic.
It’s pretty clear that these “experts” are abusing their status as supposedly objective scientists to advance a political movement. Why should anyone trust anything they say?
Additionally, enough time has now passed to assess the danger of these protests. Considering they mostly happened in the large cities of the north, there is absolutely no evidence that they had any major effect in the resurgence of the virus, which is mostly spreading in the south and west. Even there, rural areas are often hit harder than cities.
And it's obvious that these claims damage their credibility when people had loved ones die alone - it's suddenly fine for there to be crowds of thousands when gatherings were previously limited to <100.
Other countries have done so, there's no reason the US can't also.