I do admire the intention and courage behind this tribute. Honoring greatness through art
is not for the faint of heart because comparisons can't help but be made--particularly when one is attempting to do honor to a great artist by means of his or her own medium.
And John really was inimitable, wasn't he?
I do wonder if the poet's admiration was more for John's political outspokenness than for his poetic craft, since this tribute has many traits that John's work did not. But it did give me occasion to think of John, which I consider a good thing.
Re: venues: I'm not a fan of the SCP, and presumably they wouldn't be a fan of me, either. But if I thought that that venue was the best way to reach an audience for whom a certain message was intended (and if their editors didn't immediately reject such a message, or messenger--big "if"), I might submit something there. I regard
First Things in the same way. If you want your work to change minds, or even just to invite people to reconsider their positions, you can't spend all your time talking to people who agree with you.
On the other hand, I also accept the fact that my work's association with a venue with an obvious editorial point of view will
inevitably be taken as an endorsement of that editorial point of view, no matter how furiously I issue handwaving caveats and explanations elsewhere.
Personally, I won't be participating in badmouthing anyone else for making publication decisions that I would not have made myself. I like to give others the benefit of the doubt. But I understand why others are far less forgiving in that regard, and I think everyone has a perfect right to express vehement disagreement with my publication decisions, or those of others.