Then isn't it, from your perspective, just a question of whether the average politician is deserving of criticism for the pandering they do?
The ultimate job of a politician (in my view) is to govern well: which I would define as getting the most benefit to the most people. How they do that it is not something that necessarily has strict "rules".
I remember an ex-flatmate of mine met George Bush (Snr.): he asked whether Bush had ever changed his position for politics. Bush told him that he was against the death penalty, but Reagan told him he'd have to publically support it to become Reagan's VP. So he changed his stance. Was this right or wrong for him to do? Honestly, I don't think that's an easy question to answer. To do good with power, one must hold power: and to hold power in politics requires compromise. That's even true of dictators, because dictators too can be dragged down.
It is bad to pander to electorate to the detriment of the people. However if that detriment is a "expense" that can afford a greater advantage, it may be reasonable. Much of politics is compromise and making deals: pay a cost here, get a benefit there. And much of this is extraordinarily hard to assess - potentially it is only many years later the reality of success or failure becomes clear. My feeling is that many politicians pander to the people with the primary intent of holding power for personal gain, or that they squander their popularity for little or no accomplishment. I do not think the former is true of AOC, and I do not think she has ever had enough power to criticise her for failing to deliver.
I also draw a distinction between what I like, and what is effective: such as photo ops, which I usually find rather contemptible, but appreciate millions do find important, inspiring, etc. So I see no reason to criticise politicians for it, even if I personally have no time for it.