Semantics. He thinks what’s good for “klal Yisroel” is what’s good for citizens of a secular state, not the am haTorah. In other words, he has redefined klal Yisroel. Sure, for a secular state, citizenry can be defined any way you want, and to throw a bone to halachah, he can find shittos (and then twist them) to say that what he’s doing is halachic. If he defined klal Yisroel as the am haTorah, he would never do that.
Menu