The problem here is that, by definition, you're on the way to becoming a "grognard" when "your personal vision of what makes D&D" is at odds with the current direction being taken by the creative team at Wizards.
We all have an opinion about the direction the game should go. If you agree with the direction the designers are taking the game, or can accept that change happens and you want to keep playing the new game, you're in a group I like to call "adopters." If you started playing an edition other than 3.5, and now play 3.5, then you were an adopter once.
The minute you decide that you'd rather continue to play "the same old game," rather than a new one, you are a defender of keeping the "status quo." There are keepers of the status quo out there for OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, and every version of Basic ever made. These are the people usually referred to as grognards. Except they're usually pretty easygoing about it.
Then there are the people who "don't want to play the same old game" but rather want it to "develop in a different direction." They say this to try to draw a distinction between themselves and the group above (the "status quo" folks). These folks, are, in fact, the true "grognards" that people are disparaging. They can't simply continue to play the same old game, and they don't want the new edition to go in a direction they personally dislike. So they rail against the new edition, stomp their feet and try to make themselves sound like the voice of the masses. They decide to speak out for "the rest of us" against the evil corporate overlords at WotC.
What I have to say to those people is this:
You aren't the majority.
You don't speak for all of us.
Some of us like the direction the game is taking.
Some of us chuckle at statements that the antagonism of the community towards its own is the true reason the hobby's not growing. No, the hobby's not growing because we have people who are so hidebound by tradition that they don't want a more approachable game. Sorry to break it to you folks, but there are multiple "barriers to entry" to someone who might be interested in taking up tabletop roleplaying.
First, you have to pick up a game and decide that it looks "cool." The rules need to be understandable and comprehensible without having someone else explain them. The flavor needs to be "extensible" enough that the teenager who picks this up for the first time isn't totally turned off by stuff he doesn't understand. You have 10 seconds to catch his attention in the bookstore or game shop. A recognizable brand with an evocative name (like, oh, Dungeons & Dragons) helps. Snazzy cover art helps.
Then, once he's picked it up, you've got to grab his attention with something. Flavor is good, but it better be pretty compelling flavor. Flavor that is, at best, liked by only the hardcore gamer crowd is probably going to leave him cold. Then, the mechanics have to "feel" right. And by right, I mean "like he could run the fantasy stories he's familiar with" right out of the book.
Does 3.5e meet that test? I think I know the answer.
The hobby's not growing because of elitist attitudes that it should be "hard" to learn to play. If 4e changes the rules to make it easier to learn, I say great.
The hobby's not growing because not enough people can pick up D&D books in the store and understand it enough to go to their friends and say "hey, this looks fun! Let's play!" If they get attracted by the minis game and become tabletop players, there's the chance they'll become tabletop Roleplayers. Again, more players = stronger hobby.
A game you have to be introduced to by an experience veteran is doomed to die. Unless those experienced gamer groups split up and start running other games that involve inexperienced players. And quite honestly, how often does THAT happen?
I'm not saying the game has to be dumbed down to the point of becoming American Idol, but there's nothing that says it can't be tweaked to have more mass appeal - like comparing Heroes to Smallville.
