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.

Getting past the Boom years in the White House

In 1992 in this space I wrote of how proud I was that one of us -- a Baby Boomer -- had been elected president of the United States. With the election of Bill Clinton, it was about time, I had said, that we were finally in charge.

And we were still in charge -- for better or worse (worse mostly, I'm afraid) -- with the subsequent election of another Baby Boomer, George Bush.

With the completion of the Democratic and Republican national conventions and with two months left before the election, it appears that the Baby Boomer years in the White House are coming to an end, despite the fact that the Democratic presidential nominee and the Republican vice presidential nominee were both born within the Baby Boom span of years. I sense that because both Barack Obama and Sarah Pailin are playing to a different generational crowd -- the Millennial.

First we have to accept the definition of Baby Boomers. Demographers and the U.S. Census Bureau define that generation as those Americans born in the 18 year span between 1946 and 1964.

Bill Clinton was born in August 1946 and was 47 years old when he became president. He spent eight years in the White House. George Bush, born July 1946, was 55 when he assumed the presidency and also served two terms.

Here's the demographic rundown of the Democratic and Republican candidates for president and vice president:
Barack Obama, Democrat for president, was born in August 1961. He is technically a Baby Boomer;
Joe Biden, Democrat for vice president, was born in November 1942 is considered a senior citizen;
John McCain, Republican for president, was born in August 1936 and is also a senior;
Sarah Pailin, Republican for vice president, was born in February 1964 and is also a Baby Boomer.

But there is a sharp cultural division between older Baby Boomers and the younger Boomers such as Obama and Pailin. Older Boomers are preparing to or are thinking about or have already retired, and they are dealing with a host of issues -- such as the empty nest -- that younger Boomers do not. Older Baby Boomers' attitudes about culture and politics were shaped by the 1960s and '70s and the Vietnam War, the draft, the Cold War and, regrettably, disco.

Younger Boomers are concentrating very much on careers and raising their families, just as the Obamas and Pailins are doing. Their cultural and political outlook is colored by the '80s and Ronald Reagan, the end of the Soviet Union, the rise of terrorists and, frankly, the political and societal sins of older Baby Boomers.

Obama, for one, has sought to distance himself from his generational tag as I discussed in a posting for Examiner.com. In his book "The Audacity of Hope" he blames much of today's ills on a generation of Baby Boomer politicians who carried "old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago — played out on the national stage."

It was interesting that Obama went up in the age ladder to pick his vice president and McCain went down to pick his, as if the young Obama needed the experience of Biden, and an older McCain needed the youth of Pailin.

Both camps trumpet a common campaign theme -- change. Government is broken, they say, and the old guard, the old ways and old politics have gotten us into a messy war and poor economy. And by old, they mean the politics of the last 16 years, the last 16 years of two Baby Boomer presidents.

My belief is that the Obama-Biden and McCain-Pailin campaigns will put their emphasis on the Millennials -- that collection of Gen Y voters born 1982-2000 who just by their sheer numbers have a tremendous amount of political clout.

No doubt -- senior citizens and Baby Boomers will have their affect on this election. But watch the younger voters. This time around I think they'll have a greater say in whatever change happens on Nov. 4.