Barny,
Putting aside your purposely pompous provocations - clearly intended to elicit a response from architects like Jeff so you can insult them - no such thing has happened. Every golf course of merit built in this country is full of "template" holes, you're just not thoughtful enough to identify them - for the same reason unsophisticated people have a difficult time grasping the underlying structure of great art. Courses all over America have so-called classic ideas massaged into their designs, they just don't normally include a notation on the scorecard reading "Redan."
Surely, on some simplistic, surface level you are capable of viscerally understanding this hole or that hole is well done, but because you've never really sat down and studied classical strategic arrangements, it is a bit like an ape standing cowed and confused before the monolith; there is something important there, but you haven't a clue what it is - and since an epiphany has clearly not occurred after 15 years and a million snarky posts, it is safe to assume that train left Southampton long ago.
Certainly, there will always be great courses built with unconventional pacing (Pac Dunes), but strip away the grass and closely examine the GEOMETRY of the holes and you'll invariably discover an underpinning of tried and true ideas - just well hidden hidden from the vacant gaze of less rigorous intellects. Yes, a Des Muirhead will pop up every generation or so to challenge the structure of traditional design, but if the test of time is your measuring stick, beyond a singular curiosity, golf does not need another Stone Harbor any more than film needs a nouveau Hans Richter inflicting dadaist dog shit on cinema audiences.
The secret word for today is "structure" - it is the glue that holds together great literature, theater, art and yes, architecture. One of my favorite quotes is from Jean-Luc Godard, who noted "My films all have a beginning, a middle and and end, just not necessarily in that order." In other words, it is a perfectly valid choice to start or end a golf course with a par-3, but not to plant a cypress tree in front of the tee box. Structure can be elastic, but it is not silly putty.
Beyond economic boom and bust cycles, I'm not sure there is any link between "cultural" revolutions and golf design. Construction machinery has certainly improved, but the Luddite in me wonders why golf courses from the drag pan era seem to have more personality and texture than some of the monstrosities built before the minimalist movement in the 90's.
Incidentally, Indiana University called, they want your sheepskin back.