How would I write a response to "The Case for Short Words" by Richard Lederer?

In "The Case for Short Words," Richard Lederer makes a strong, convincing argument for using short, simple words. He does this in several ways.
First, in the first four paragraphs he practices what he preaches, never using a word of more than one syllable. Those paragraphs are clear, concise, and vivid. Lederer even shows you can write with poetic imagery using words of only one syllable:

Bright like sparks that glow in the night, prompt like the dawn that greets the day, sharp like the blade of a knife, hot like salt tears that scald the cheek....

Second, Lederer doesn't entirely forbid using long words: if you need to, do so, he says. It's just that short words are usually more effective. Long words don't impress readers to the extent we think they will.
Third, Lederer gives examples of great writers, like Shakespeare, and great orators, like Winston Churchill, who relied for effect on using short words. Lederer gives examples of powerful statements made with words of one syllable, such as Churchill saying,

I will say: it is to wage war, by sea, land, and air, with all our might and with all our strength that God can give us.

Although Lederer doesn't mention it, there is a long tradition of valuing short Anglo-Saxon words over long Latinate words: William Zinsser, for one, advocates for this in his classic writing book On Writing Well.