Daas Yochid, you may be right; he may be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. But I don’t see it. You want to call him misguided, or well intentioned but missing the point in a dangerous way, well I don’t agree but it’s a logical understanding of his approach. If he was as full of hate as his father, he would never put two Rabbis in his slate (including his #2), even if they are Rabbis who you may not regard highly. If he was into giving a shtoch, those Rabbis would be conservative and reform “Rabbis”, but they are not, they are dati tzioni and chardal.
If you look at his historical analysis, It seems clear to me that he took the rhetorical approach of a socio-historical dialectic in his speech, and not a simple historical approach. Not surprised he’s drawing the conclusions he does within the context of the point he’s trying to make. Happens a lot when politicians play with history.
And unfortunately, the definition of “chodosh” is entirely arbitrary and entirely in the hands of those who asser it for themselves, so it undermines his argument less than it does the consistency of those who define themselves by the Chasam Sofer’s perspective.