- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 15,317
- Reaction score
- 5,530
DNC pandering is when in response to public pushback, they take an action that misrepresents their response to the pressure as being more substantive than it is. It's not that they have materially changed their position, just modified their rhetoric in public.
"given the scale of suffering in Gaza there must be an immediate ceasefire"
-holds for cheers
"for at least 6 weeks"
that was weeks ago, wasn't immediate, didn't get 6 weeks. This was off the back of a the 'flour massacre' which she was trying to emotively convey concern as justification for the call for the ceasefire. They then follow nearly a month later with a milquetoast, non-committal resolution that was more an 'agreement to agree subject to conditions' resolution that got rejected due to how ineffectual and blatantly misleading it was.
Now we have more of the same, but at least it's something. I'm not necessarily for stopping the military action, especially since the hostage situation remains unclear, but I am definitely for expanding aid delivery to civilians.
That's how responses to public pressure for a massive event like this work. They're gradual, they're slow, sometimes there's even reversals, but if there's enough of this pressure, there will be results. Though American democracy is terribly flawed, it's still a democracy.
The truth is, both parties support Israel but for different reasons and to different degrees. So a full-on condemnation of Israel and an immediate demand to stop the attack is going to be difficult.