A generation looks for a leader

Tell me if this sounds familiar:

• A generation of Americans feels abandoned by their government;
• These voters, generally under 30, feel disenfranchised by a perceived lack of opportunity and a government that is out of tune with their needs;
• They worry that war affects them in a personal way, affects the country in a global way … and not in a good way;
• They latch onto a presidential candidate who, to The Establishment, seems outside the mainstream but who speaks to their fears and to their hopes.

I could be re-telling the tale of Baby Boomers during the late 1960s and 1970s and their attraction to Eugene McCarthy and then George McGovern.

But, in fact, I’m summarizing what I sense among the 20-somethings today and their attraction to Ron Paul.

I’m in New Hampshire and had the opportunity to spend some time researching and reporting on the just-completed presidential primary.

Paul, a congressman from Texas, finished second in the Republican primary behind favorite and favored son Mitt Romney, former governor of next-door neighbor Massachusetts.

Romney got 39 percent of the vote; Paul got 23 percent.

It was a strong showing for a Republican like Paul, because he doesn’t always resonate the Republican values.

Republicans tend to be hawkish. Paul wants to bring home all the troops from Afghanistan now. In fact, he questions much of this country’s military presence in locations worldwide, having adopted what some describe as an isolationist point of view when it comes to the country’s military.

Republicans tend to be law and order. Paul wants to legalize marijuana. As a libertarian, in fact, he believes government should play as insignificant role as possible in the individual choices we should be allowed to make as Americans.

So, no, Paul is not your grandfather’s kind of Republican in the vein of Barry Goldwater or Ronald Regan.

But here’s why Paul did so well in the Republican primary in New Hampshire and why he’ll be a significant factor going forward:

First off, New Hampshire’s is an open primary, which means that undeclared voters at the time they go to vote in the primary can choose a Republican or Democratic ballot. Undeclareds make up 40 percent of the registered voters in the state.

There wasn’t much happening on the Democratic side of the ballot. Incumbent President Barack Obama is a lock for renomination on the Democratic ticket.

So the independent voters had the chance to make a difference in the Republican race.

According to exit polling data, 47 percent of voters ages 18 to 29 supported Paul, and it was the biggest percentage of support for any candidate in any age group that voted on Tuesday.

In the course of doing some reporting on Tuesday morning I interviewed a Ron Paul sign holder outside of the polling place in Hampton, and I asked him why younger voters were attracted to Paul.

“Because Obama lied,” he said. “Obama gave them a bunch of promises that he couldn’t deliver and they’re fed up.”

Now … there’s more to Paul that people need to consider. Some put him in the “wing-nut” category because of his off-beat conspiracy theories that involve the CIA and that American policy was to blame for 9/11.

But there are some general parallels between the generations.

My generation was fed up with Lyndon Johnson then Richard Nixon. Our Afghanistan was Vietnam.

Our Ron Paul was Eugene McCarthy, the Minnesota congressman who challenged Johnson for the Democratic nomination in 1968.

McCarthy’s surprisingly strong vote, on his anti-war platform, in the New Hampshire Democratic primary convinced Johnson to withdraw from the race and not run for re-election.

Then it was George McGovern, the Democratic senator from South Dakota who challenged incumbent president Richard Nixon.

McCarthy didn’t become president. Neither did McGovern. And it’s very doubtful Paul will either.

But Paul speaks to a current generation’s need -- like a previous generation -- for a leader to address their idealism and frustration. That we have in common.