Sean:
Ah ha!, I see it...but that's a totally generic "we" -- although I do know, 100% factually, of at least one club that the USGA has told that they must make certain design changes if they wish to be considered for a U.S. Open (the USGA will hotly deny this) so I suppose it's not entirely generic...
And obviously you care a good deal about the game or you wouldn't be here.
My point is that to simply say "if it doesn't effect me directly, I don't care" doesn't demonstrate that very much. Of course you've got no reason to bleed if some club you'll never play makes a few changes; I wouldn't necessarily lose much sleep over that myself. The point is that these things happen needlessly, partially because individual memberships don't know/don't care about what they have, but also because the USGA's abrogation of authority places those clubs in a difficult position (Hootie Johnson, I think, could write a book about that). Of course you (or anyone) can say "But it's their decision. Nobody's forcing them..." And strictly speaking, in most cases that's true. But to suggest that people will comfortably sit back and do nothing as something they love (and often have a $$$ interest in) becomes progressively obsolete is not a realistic assessment of human nature.
This is why I keep harping on the question of "What do we gain?" To folks like Craig Sweet, the artificially enhanced ability to have his poorly struck shots "feel good and fly straighter" supercedes the entirety of the game's history, balance, challenge and uniqueness. Thankfully -- and against the manufacturer's initial gamble -- not quite so many people covet the value of the ego boost as they initially hoped.
Truthfully, I don't think the game NEEDS to remain as it was in any particular period. I just cannot fathom why we would allow it to change so drastically when there's no payoff (save for some boosted egos) in return.