Yesterday, 10:42 PM
That, indeed, is the point. It's not just Trump, it's that the entire populist end of the liberty movement got up, and have done the things the Pauls would not---namely succeed in fighting the establishment and put together a winning voting coalition, not just talk about doing so. These things needed to happen in addition to, and on top of the intellectual factors. The fixation with imagining we could prevail solely by prioritizing a coherent agenda, while spurning any other dynamic, has limited the reach of the Paul campaigns, compared to the growth otherwise seen in the rest of the grassroots.
Notice specifically, Trump did many of the things the little Napoleons of our movement kept screaming for the Pauls not to do---from openly talking about election fraud, to dangling the threat of running third party, to embracing America first or pro-sovereignty interests, to fighting PC, to questioning Obama's birth status, to raising conspiracy and collusion issues, to outright insulting or deflating the media and other candidates, to seriously bonding with socons, etc---yet did far better than did either Paul, who tried to get traction using rationalistic pitches alone.
The outsider, alt-right populist wave he has been riding has demonstrated itself to be a far better and more complete political vehicle for couching a viable, electable liberty message than the dry, utterly-consistent-intellectual-agenda-above-all-else emphasis that has dominated the Paul movement to date. Whatever happens on Election day, this presages a near future where the much, much larger populist liberty factions within the alt-right and patriot media will likely take over the LP or the "intellectual" side of the liberty movement, and not the reverse. At this point, they have acquired and established more authority to lead it and take it to victory than we have.