What's angered, puzzled or discouraged some conservatives is that President Bush's policies seem in some important ways to mirror those of Kennedy and Johnson in the 1960s. There's the same passion for remaking the world, a similar emphasis on removing barriers to the flow of people, goods, and jobs, and the same indifference to big government or even a positive liking for new government programs. If Bush were strongly committed either to decreasing the size of government or to opposing globalizing economic trends or to reducing overseas commitments he'd face less disagreement. Trying to ride three horses (Nixonian big government, free trade and mass immigration, and an ambitious interventionist foreign policy) it's natural that President Bush alienates some who would otherwise have supported him.
One doesn't have to be an isolationist or racist or nationalist or protectionist or a supporter of Buchanan or Rockwell to be unenthusiastic about the current administration or critical of its policies. When political elites are silent about things that trouble average voters, like immigration, affirmative action, job loss, or foreign adventures, it's natural that some publicists step in to speak for "orphaned" voters and present themselves as a "counter-elite." Such opinionists aren't always the most trustworthy or reputable observers of the political scene, but that doesn't mean that the underlying concerns of the public or their disillusionment with most conventional politicians is in some way illegitimate or reprehensible.
What you may see isn't so much paleoconservatism or "hatred" of Bush, as disenchantment and apathy. Older conservative "narratives" and principles have been dropped by the administration, and some voters will go with them. It's possible that for every person who rallies to Rockwell or Chronicles there may be two or three who just lose interest in politics. I suppose President Bush will pick up some new voters due to foreign policy concerns, but he's done much to alienate some of the "Middle American Conservatives" who supported Reagan and (with reservations and misgivings) Nixon.
When a candidate campaigns for a "more modest" foreign policy, and then procedes (well before 911) to make war and regime change in the Middle East a priority, why be surprised that some on the right dissent? The situation is similar with other policy areas that were long regarded as "conservative": keeping illegal immigration under control, building a strong national economy, and reducing deficit. Changes in these principles may have been necessary, but argument about such things is also natural, unavoidable, and necessary. "Paleoconservativism" may not be the best response, but it's a good thing that such changes are discussed and argued about, rather than imposed from the top down without discussion and dissent.
We sometimes disagree on major points; but the above from your post is right on the mark. As one who fought the Kennedy/Johnson Administration at a far more youthful age--even enlisted my Congressman at the time, to help me go after Dean Rusk on our foreign policy in the Third World--you have nailed one aspect of a serious disillusionment with President Bush. The consequences of the Dean Rusk foreign policy--justified at the time in ways not unlike those recently aped by the Administration--are a major part of my essay on Democracy In The Third World--Destructive Egalitarian Myth.
And a rotten, arrogant and self-defeating policy does not improve with age, simply because it is revived 43 years later by those calling themselves Republicans. Nor is the ruthless suppression of local tribal cultures any kindlier, when it is promoted by those calling themselves "compassionate."
William Flax