Are you talking about the same Ron Paul who ran two failed campaigns and couldn't extend his movement beyond the Kool-Aid drinking corners of the internet? The same Ron Paul whose son dropped out after getting less than five percent of the vote in Iowa?
I like that you're optimistic and idealistic, but color me skeptical, to say the least! I won't rule out every one of your predictions, but even assuming Trump and his ideology completely fizzles the moment he loses, to suggest that Ron Paul, of all people, will gain more coverage in the history books than a George Wallace-esque candidate who hijacked a national party seems a bit far-fetched to me.
It makes sense because Ron Paul, while personally unelectable, in the patterns of his support clearly heralded an actual shift in the Republican Party (towards emphasis on fiscal issues, away from combative social issues), and he'll be recognized as a harbinger of the shift after it is finished (however similar or dissimilar the final product ends up being to Paul). There isn't much to say about Trump (what does a history book now have to say about Wallace, besides a sentence or two dedicated to his unsuccessful run? RFK, who was never the nominee, gets more coverage because he represented an actual shift in the party).
I wouldn't call my predictions optimistic. I supported McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 (in the primaries, that is); I am much more interventionist than I perceive the future of the Republican Party to be, and I find the Democratic future distinctly horrifying (I'd much prefer the current, Obama/Clinton party to what I think the Democrats will be like 15 years from now). I'm just calling things the way I see them.