Future historians will debate the point. Historians being what they are there will doubtless be as many opinions as there are historians.
“ If the Ron Paul Campaign had been competent would we still have taken back America?”
They may hold conferences to consider the points, assay the individuals involved; there will be no disagreement that it was through the candidacy of Ron Paul that the world of political campaigns changed forever, moving into networking, as opposed to hierarchy; The real question will be the motives of those in charge of the official campaign. That is natural; the Ron Paul Campaign overturned that political hierarchy first.
Could the Campaign HQ in Arlington, Virginia have held politics on its previous course if it had been run competently, as the other presidential campaigns were run? What if they had possessed some modicum of experience? What if they had known that the media uses a Day Book, into which all campaigns enter their events? What if they had had a steering committee, standard for presidential campaigns? Lots of what ifs to be discussed by historians. We can be sure they will be.
Did those entrusted by Ron understand that for revolution to take place they must force activists to react against authority?
The formal campaign in Arlington, Virginia was from the first instance unable to do anything much but antagonize activists, forcing volunteers to work on their own. They refused to put up the Congressman's schedule; they refused to pay so Ron could participate in what proved to be the pivotal South Carolina debate until activists inundated them.
The historians will debate if those failures were intentional or sheer incompetence. Those details will interest only historians.
Those failures made it necessary for individual activists, moved by the words and principles of Ron Paul, to look about them and use what had been made available through the Internet to take the campaign into their own hands.
And so a new world of governance through persuasion and consensus was born.