Putting pressure on politicians to make them do what you want.
Start here:
https://nationalgunrights.org/about-us/strategy/
And end up here:
https://facl-training.org/schools
I got motivated to check my local Campaign For Liberty contacts (Kansas).
The website onboarding is outdated. Apparently, CFL has abandoned the electoral politics model and is more directed at legislative activism. In fact, the FACL training is going on in Wichita in January. I want to go, just don't want to drive 2.5 hours for something I feel could be online.
I spoke on the phone with Blake Branson for about 45 minutes. Aside from him , the major player in KS CFL is Jon Axtell. Above that is state liaison, above that national.
From what I got from him, there's only about 6 to 10 people who actually help with the organizing. It's all done by email, and not everyone agrees on which issues are important. Blake essentially stated that "issue splintering" (e.g. some people only care about gun rights) is the primary weakness of the "activism via political power" model.
From our talk, I also get the impression that most people don't do much and don't want to do much. Even if they did, there is no real "onboarding" unless you count FACL $40 conferences. Beyond that, you are blocked by your state coordinators leadership, time and task management skills (assuming he or she will trust you enough to let you into the inner circle of doing real work).
The candidate survey I think is something we could build on. There needs to be some kind of "public record" of not only how someone voted, but why they aren't being transparent. A fusion of journalism and legislative activism. Blake and Jon have had real success even with small numbers and little money. The old CFL strategy I never agreed with. The payoff for volunteers was practically non-existent and their onboarding tasks (I tried myself to complete just the first step) would take a regular person a weeks worth of week easily, and then they still wouldn't have anything to do.
The old website was better (there was a forum and we could talk with other activists at state and county level). They scrapped that. My guess is, CFL doesn't want "truthers" and all the other riff-raff giving bad optics. Instead of investing in moderating, they just muzzled the supporters.
I DO LIKE THE LOBBYIST MODEL. I don't think the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters understand what CFL is. The website doesn't help, because they've really abandoned campaign stuff for more direct legislative activism.
However....
We need to bridge the gap of people who are ostracized because of "bad optics" and give them something to do in order to support a model like CFL. The high-level activists who participate in the actual logistics and who need to go through this training are a minority inside our minority movement. We need those people online, knocking on doors, waving signs, and all the rest.
I saw over the years, the berating coming from people crying about bad optics and truthers and all the rest. Who cares. Ron is having strokes live on TV talking conspiracies and hasn't changed a bit. He's not berating and ostracizing, but there's been a lot of that coming from people hired with money he raised an email lists compiled in his name.
Even the tactics of "intimidation" described in your first link. Did the Paulites not do that? Did we not win online polls, fax and phone legislators, hold multiple money bombs?
If legislative activism is the path, and you have my vote for that path, then the question is strategy within that. Everyone cannot and will not do that. But they can be part of the movement that does and support in other ways.
I'm all for putting people to the test. You want to help? Here's where you sign up. Here's what you can do. Here's a meeting you can to once a week or once a month. Here's people near you.
The actual evidence is the opposite of what you believe in this case.
Edit: Back to the topic at hand. I didn't see you actually make a legitimate argument against what Lew wrote. Here's what he said about politicians.
CONVINCING THE POLITICIANS. Another type of problem stems from the belief that political organizing is the answer. But this can only lead to despondency, as effort after effort fails to yield fruit. Despite what you hear, the political class is not interested in ideas for their own sake. They are interested in subsidizing their friends, protecting their territory, and getting re-elected. Political ideology for them is, at best, a hobby. It is only useful insofar as it provides a cover for what they would do otherwise. I’m generalizing here, and yes, exceptions are possible. In fact, I can think of one in our century: Ron Paul.
Having been involved in this since 2007, what he said back in 2003 when he wrote that article seems quite correct. Yep, Ron Paul was the exception. But is seems the compromise we did to "convince the politicians" changed the movement more than it did the politicians. The height of the liberty movement is Donald Trump? Seriously? Rand Paul at one point floated red flag laws. Some people here are hoping Trump will become a military dictator. Yes there have been some small victories, but the despondency that Lew warned about is very real. And Lew wasn't advocating having a "book club." Quite the opposite. He said libertarians just talking to libertarians is a waste of time. Instead he talked about engaging the popular culture to actually build the movement. That's what progressives really do! Back when the global warming movement was still relatively unknown, I witnessed college students walking up to people on sidewalks to try to convince them of global warming. Look at how identity politics is pushed throughout the culture long before ANY laws are even attempted. In 2007/2008 the Ron Paul cultural phenomenon is what put him on the map. It's a shame that cultural phenomenon wasn't capitalized on.
Ultimately, in light of what I said above relating to over-emphasizing legislative activism strategy, I think you and Matt are the right and left leg of a movement arguing over whose fault it is we aren't walking anywhere.
If the movement is too lost in abstraction and idealism that it can't organize or do a roll call, it isn't a movement. A movement is people working together. That involves defining two things: people in the movement, and work.
Back in the days you speak of, I actually knew who people were. I saw them in face to face meetings. Now instead of a lot of online social networking exhibitionism, it's ONLY a lot of online social networking exhibitionism.
So where to start. We got me you and Matt talking. How do we keep this going?
Rand has in the past called for demilitarzation of the police, which is another way of saying "defund the police." Oh but timing is everything and in 2020 the right is all "blue lives matter." 
