War and the Median Voter Theorem

The Islamic State militant group has inflicted horrific amounts of damage to the people of Iraq. Although they have only become popular in American news media within the past month or two, the pain and suffering that the Islamic State militants are willing to cause is not news for the Commander in Chief. Many people accuse President Obama of acting too late against the Islamic State. This group has grown much larger and more powerful as it has taken over more cities in Iraq. It would have been easier to defeat the Islamic State if action had been taken earlier. However, taking action earlier would have resulted in less calamity. I believe that Americans support the War on Terror most when danger is clear. A large portion of Iraq losing control to the Islamic State has illustrated clear danger, whereas preventing the Islamic State from making gains would depict them as less of a threat. I think that recent news had changed voters' distribution when considering their support for fighting the Islamic State. Three months ago, much fewer voters would be willing to support this war than today. This means that the median voter has shifted in further support of the war due to the gains that the Islamic State has made. Acting against the Islamic State later rather than sooner makes the Democratic Party more representative of the median voter, due to escalated danger posed by the Islamic State. With a presidential election only two years away, the Democratic Party does not want to portray themselves as 'too right-winged,' which could lose them left-tailed voters as a punishment. I think that waiting to fight the Islamic State was a political move to help Democrats win more votes in the upcoming presidential election. Some people may believe that this is very unethical. However, if the Democrats believe that winning the Presidential election may provide a long run benefit that the Republicans would not provide, such as better policies on dealing with terror organizations, than the humanitarian cost of delaying action against the Islamic State may be worth the benefit of winning extra votes in the upcoming presidential election.