It seems to me that descriptivism versus prescriptivism is a false dichotomy. On another stackexchange site, I was recently moved to interject, in a hot and heavy dispute over split infinitives: --
Even someone who thinks prescriptivist grammar is fine can think that a certain instance of prescriptivist grammar is nonsense. Good prescriptivism consists of making the language more beautiful, rich, precise, and expressive by emulating what's best about the best writing -- which has nothing to do with obeying a 19th century grammar book that codified already-obsolete 16th-18th century usage. http://merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/to-boldly-split-infinitives
This sort of thing makes me want to write a manifesto, but we all know that manifesto-writing is a sin, right up there with adultery, kicking dogs, and writing "it's" for "its." It may also be a sin because reinventing the wheel is a sin.
Reference request: Can anyone point me to influential or well written discussions of this topic that would allow me to abstain from this sin? That is, I would like to see a fervent, fire-breathing Fidel Castro defense of what I've described above in vague terms as "good" prescriptivism. I would also be happy to see a well argued explanation of why my notion of good prescriptivism is wrong.