Sean,
I agree because the govt has (depending on your POV) attacked the club concept. I recall the opening to the original World Atlas of Golf bemoaning the end of the private club era, because tax benefits were being taken away and predicting golf clubs would some day be fond memories. Obviously, many corporate tax bennies went out when Reagan and others dropped the tax rates, but clubs do survive. And, I can respect both points of view.
Later, the govt (and Martha Burke) attacked the general concepts of private golf clubs, with the govt putting strict rules on what is considered private- you are not private by ADA and tax code definition if you allow business talk (might be unfair to minorities and women who can't get in), sponsor public functions like weddings, which makes you a place of public accomodation, etc. That really limited the purposes of many private clubs in the name of equality, even though the definition of a club IS to separate yourselves somehow. Again, I understand both POV.
The environmental movement seeks to restrict use of pesticides, chemicals, water, etc. for golf, even though its not as big a player as other political industries (ag, homeowners) I think they understand that they don't have the legal rights to stop clubs, but use the idea of "stakeholders" (i.e. the general public) to force changes.
Certainly local govts have provided public golf for a long time, getting involved in our game in a positive way. Buick's current withdrawal from the Tour is in part in response to their current relationship to govt (and bankruptcy, to be fair!)
So, govt involvement in golf is a long standing trend. Most of it is moving golf towards the public side anyway, since it seems to me, most govt actions are intended and do represent the "little guy." I understand that. I also understand that it is possible, not today or tomorrow, that at some point, the govt MIGHT take yet another step in golf to serve other political reasons that could have results we don't like very much as golfers.
God knows, painting golf as an elitist sport, not much different than Chavez, does happen here.
Like you, I wouldn't mind giving up my club membership. I only belong because I negotiated a free membership anyway. Most of my other golf is also free because of industry ties. And yet, while its not my scene, I think it would be a shame when any kind of govt control tips the scales against the concept of private clubs in some outright, or perhaps less obvious way. The less obvious way is far more likely here in the US than a Chavez type pronouncement, although I wouldn't put that type of statement out of the question by some of our most liberal leaders!
I understand Melyvn's point, but in the US, it doesn't matter what real history is, its what news and politicians count on people not remembering. It seems we play into that and generally don't recall related events that happen before, oh the last two weeks or so. And, it seems a lot of policy is made based on the most recent event, rather than any long term focus.
But, I digress from golf today!