The obvious point to make about status quo writers and their apologists and their supplicants is that they have no vision. Their world is as it is, always was, and forever shall be. They don't consider what lies ahead. Their sole argument against the ULA is that the present bureaucratized state of affairs is fine.
But in truth the world around us, the setting and delivery system of creative writing, is changing swiftly. The rate of technological change is accelerating. Today's best strategy in a few years could be obsolete. Not even bloggers are ready to adjust their minds to what's happening. They use a medium scarcely imagined a decade ago, yet their aesthetic values, their codes, their modes of operating remain stuck in patterns that were outdated in the 1960s. (That the system used to discover and promote literature doesn't change as the world changes is a major reason literature has lost its pre-eminent place in the culture of this society.)
90% of lit-bloggers and 95% of System writers are already obsolete, because their thinking is obsolete.
No one asks questions. Where will blogs be when their number increases a thousand-fold within this decade? The idea can be discomforting.
What kind of writers and writing will best compete in future days? The ULA is asking these questions and creating answers.
Those who remain wedded to the current state of affairs risk becoming comical figures, like Dan Rather.
The ULA, alone among writers groups, by severing connections to past ways, has plunged into the future wholeheartedly.