Second helpings at the Applebee’s salad bar

Last updated on: August 9, 2021 at 7:06 pm by Fred Clark

Second helpings at the Applebee’s salad bar 2021-08-09T19:06:55-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

• David Brooks goes back for a second helping at the Applebee’s salad bar, revisiting his Bobos in Paradise thesis in an essay for the Atlantic. Paul Campos responds appropriately.

The theme here — one Brooks has sounded for years in various forms — is that our ills in America all derive from the condescension of liberal elitists. These are the wealthy-yet-artsy “Bohemian bourgeois” he frequently mocks as out of touch with the common folk of real America because, for example, they’ve never even eaten at the Applebee’s salad bar.

Bobos in Paradise

Yes, he really said that. And no, Applebee’s doesn’t have a salad bar. And yes that choice of detail intended to prove how hopelessly out-of-touch those liberal elitists are therefore proved, instead, that it was Brooks himself who was out of touch.

Brooks has a knack for this. See also his 2017 column attempting to make capicola ham sound like some newly introduced, mysterious, elitist, exotic ingredient that sneering liberals consumed in order to humiliate honest, salt-of-the-earth MAGA-folk. Capicola, he said, was a perfect example of the kind of elitist “cultural barriers” that these snobby Bobos had erected to exclude and immiserate the good people of real America.

Brooks went to high school with some relatives of mine and, like them, sometimes ate Italian hoagies from John’s (a terrific sandwich shop a short walk from both where they went to high school and I went to college). And he also almost certainly ate an Italian hoagie or two from that famously elitist, exclusive restaurant called “Wawa,” which has been serving capicola ever since before Brooks himself was a sallow-eyed teenager.

The type — or stereotype — Brooks describes as a “Bobo” might vaguely apply to some real set of people who may or may not have a measure of the cultural influence he ascribes to them. But every time Brooks sets out to describe them, imagining that he’s describing, say, Guy Pearce’s character in Mare of Easttown, Brooks winds up describing this category in a way that makes everyone else in Easttown a “Bobo” too — Mare and Helen and Lori and Beth and Freddie and Fr. Dan and all the rest.

The LA Times did an entertaining entertainment piece on Mare of Easttown in which they sought to interview the actual “mayor of Easttown.” This led to an amusing discussion of very small town politics with the chair of the board of supervisors from Easttown Township, which doesn’t have a mayor. That was fun, but beside the point in a completely Brooksian way, since the HBO series wasn’t set in Berwyn — the Very Mainline center of the “real Easttown.” It was, rather, set in a fictional southwest Delco town vaguely based on, I think, Aston (eASTtOwN) — a place that’s geographically and economically very far from the old money of the Mainline. (To his credit, the guy from Berwyn tried to set the Times writer straight on Pennsylvania’s admittedly confusing boroughs vs. townships distinctions, but the writer was already committed to the bit and unwilling to hang up and try again with the mayor of Aston.)

That LA Times piece, in other words, was premised on a mistake. It was the kind of mistake — like confusing Haverford and Havertown — that’s understandable from people who aren’t from around here. But that’s the point: David Brooks is from around here. And yet he still keeps getting confused about the difference between Haverford and Havertown, or the difference between St. David’s and Garrett Hill.

And Brooks does so in a way that’s not just sloppy, but seems to be dishonest — which is what the “sallow-eyed teenager” reference there is about. That’s from my reaction to his massively misleading description of my former roommate’s coffee shop in his Bobos book, which accompanied his weirdly inaccurate description of a “new” bookstore that was, in fact, a place his own parents had frequented for decades.

Again, this doesn’t mean that every aspect of Brooks’ strained argument about cultural elitism is as wholly dubious as his multiple failed attempts to illustrate that argument with examples. One could argue, I suppose, that discussing a “prestige-TV” miniseries from subscription cable as though it were as widely understood as Happy Days was back in the late ’70s might be whipped up into another potential example of cultural elitism and cultural barriers erected by over-educated “Bohemians” against which blue-collar working-class common folk were reasonably rebelling by embracing the racialized politics of white resentment. We could lean heavily on the slogan “It’s not TV. It’s HBO” and use that as an illustration of some vast gulf between the intellectual liberal snobs who watch HBO and the populist majority of real Americans who instead watch The Masked Singer.

But to do that, we’d have to obtusely pretend that HBO was somehow the cultural equivalent of a reserved box at the Met and not also the streaming service lots of real Americans use to binge watch Friends or Zack Snyder’s latest recuts of Justice League. And it would be very hard to do all of that without ourselves embracing the same condescending snobbery that Brooks is trying to denounce, without sounding very much like we were suggesting that Mare of Easttown or The Sopranos was somehow beyond the grasp of those culturally backward normies who wanted and deserved only fare like Full House and American Idol.

Brooks’ weird denunciations of “Bobos” are hard for me to swallow not just because of the local angle of so many of his examples, and which thus only prove that he don’t know Delco. They’re also hard for me to swallow personally because I am, personally, just the kind of over-educated liberal he imagines he’s describing. And he’s right about one thing: I don’t eat at Applebee’s. But that’s because I can’t afford to, not with what I make driving a forklift to unload trucks of mulch for the gardens of Easttown.

• At the Smithsonian, Abigail Eisenstadt writes about “The True Story Behind How Pearls Are Made.” The science here is not new or flashy or controversial, but it may still pose a big hurdle for our friends who seek to be “Bible-prophecy scholars.” Because the basic science of “How Pearls Are Made” has some horrifying implications for their insistence that we Christians must interpret every word in the book of Revelation “literally.”

Eisenstadt enlists a pair of scientists to outline the basics of pearls:

“Pearl is a word we use for a shiny creation that a mollusk produces. If debris gets stuck in a mollusk and they can’t flush it out, they coat this debris in their own mother of pearl or shell material,” said Gabriela Farfan, environmental mineralogist and Coralyn W. Whitney curator of gems and minerals at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History.

While all mollusks, including oysters, mussels, and clams can technically make pearls, only some saltwater clams and freshwater mussels are used to commercially grow cultured gem-grade pearls.

“Only certain mollusk groups use a substance, called nacre, which gives gem-quality pearls their opalescent sheen,” said Chris Meyer, a marine invertebrate zoologist and curator of mollusks at the museum.

Now turn with me to Revelation 21:21, John’s vision of the New Jerusalem: “And the twelve gates are twelve pearls, each of the gates is a single pearl …” Each of these gates, verse 17 tells us, is “144 cubits” tall. These are the proverbial “Pearly Gates.” But they’re not described as pearl-y but as pearls — single pearls, each more than 75 meters in size.

You see where this is going. If we are to read this passage “literally” — as LaHaye and Lindsey and Hagee and Mohler insist we must — then we are forced to imagine the existence of at least 12 battleship-sized mollusks. Granted, for anyone who’s managed to maintain a “literal” reading of the various dragons and beasts and many-headed monstrosities in the preceding chapters of Revelation, pondering the existence of an oyster the size of a city block may seem relatively easy. But the image still seems disturbing and more than a little frightening.

On the other hand, this is part of John’s vision of Heaven-come-to-Earth, so it would be wrong to focus only on the negative aspects of this image. Picture a lemon wedge that’s 144 cubits long …

class warfare

Previous Post

August 5, 2021

Reckoning of the fables

Next Post

August 11, 2021 Vertical blinds

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who prophesied a virgin would bear a son called Immanuel?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Micah Ezekiel Jeremiah Isaiah