I don't get the impression that they do think it's a good idea. Instead, I think they're trying to convey that what supposed "traditionalists" are claiming aren't necessarily factual and that psionics in D&D aren't as immutable as some claim.
Exactly.
The first version of D&D psionics was
primarily about psionic combat, with some other talents attached. And the longest-lived single version of psionics, AD&D 1st edition's (1978-1989), was the same; the 1e DMG's glossary went so far as to define psionics as "Mental combat, possible only by very intelligent beings and some monsters. Psionics also encompasses certain other special mental abilities, such as telekinesis."
No other version of psionics ever lasted to see its sixth birthday, and the majority of those other systems (OD&D, 2e CPH, 2e S&P, and 3e, as opposed to 3.5 and 4e) had psionic combat.
So don't tell me your vision is, as the person I quoted, "the whole point of psionics from the start". You
don't have tradition on your side. Argue that your vision enables better stories, or that you want a caster class based on point-fuelled powers, or whatever. That's cool. Just don't invoke the history of D&D psionics as your justification.
(Unless, of course, your vision for 5e psionics really is based around psionic combat. In which case, while I'll admit you have tradition on your side, I have to really question the soundness of your judgment. Psionic combat
never worked well.)