A few thoughts.
First, I know Lee and don't think he is a bitter jerk. Shame on JK for that!
Second, I don't think there is that much "wisdom" in his comments. I say that because I believe that:
1. There is sort of a "natural" participation rate in golf. If USGA or someone tried to build play, we might raise it a few %.
2. I think most studies show that its the embarrasment of learning and then the time that preclude new play. If we want more golfers, we need to focus on getting kids at least mildly proficient, especially girls.
3. Last years hot clubs and balls are sold at tremendous discounts. Courses are reducing greens fees from a few years ago and are less crowded. In many ways a great time to start golf.
4. Courses are all over the map in cost and difficulty. As hinted above, when a new golfer whiffs seven times, I don't think its the lakes that are discouraging.
That said, I agree that less water hazards and lighter rough, and perhaps fewer bunkers all make play faster and less frustrating. Of course, operators and gca's have known that for a long time, so Lee saying it is nothing really new, or wise.
When there is water on the typical course, its not there because the gca wants to make a tough course. Its there because the project requires either detention for regional flood control, or the developer wants some water views, and of course, we always need at least one irrigation pond.
If the rough is deep, the super hasn't cut it, for rain, lack of manpower, etc. I doubt more than 1% of US courses purposely keep rough deep to toughen the course
Bunkers? Well the gca is mostly at fault, because its their artistic expression, but it may be influenced by the need to sell houses as well. In those cases, once the lots are sold, its not uncommon for courses to do a bunker removal program.
Short version: Just as only 3% of golfers really care about the architecture, I think perhaps 3% max of golfers who quit or don't start do so because of the architecture.