You have to be careful to separate the legitimate issues from the dog whistles.
Come on now. Is it "hate" to seek to define "inclusion" as participation in a merit-based, color-blind society?
The problem is that we don't have a color-blind society. Numerous studies show there is active discrimination in hiring, etc. That doesn't mean everything that hinders Black Americans (and to a lesser extent Latinos) is due to racism, some is due to class, some to culture, some to history. But denying that racism isn't real is simply denying an unpleasant truth.
Is it "hate" to seek better choices for our kids than terrible public schools?
The problem is that most voucher programs work more to entrench segregation than school quality. There is limited oversight of many programs, and little evidence they work to improve educational quality. This is where rhetoric should be canned and evidence based policies should be implemented. Both the Right and the teacher unions are wrong, the question isn't whether there should be "choice," but how it should be implemented, monitored and regulated to ensure that the kids get the benefit, not some private equity fund or group that wants to shift funding to their kids away from poor kids.
Is it "hate" to prefer a melting pot, unhyphenated Americanism to identity politics suffused with a vision of this country as irredeemably racist?
The melting pot is a complicated issue, in the past it was based on the concept that immigrants should adopt the white Protestant culture that was dominant in the late 19th and early 20th century. But being American was never about being white Protestant, it's about accepting the fundamental principles that underlay this country, the Declaration of Independence as an aspirational document, the Constitution as the legal foundation, and of course, baseball. This does not require Latinos to stop speaking Spanish, anymore than it required German immigrants to stop speaking German in the 19th century (which many did for generations). And imagine how bad American food would be if immigrants gave up their recipes for white bread and mashed potatoes. Since being "American" doesn't require one to be Protestant, European or white, there is no conflict between embracing one's origins and being fervently American. Fighting in our wars is far more patriotic than rioting on Jan 6 - go look at the ethnic composition of our Armed forces.
Is it "hate" to point out that Black Americans are disproportionately the victims of urban crime and seek to incarcerate the recidivists who plague these communities?
The problem of urban crime is due to a lot of factors, poverty, enforced (both de jure and de facto) segregation (black kids who move to integrated middle class neighborhoods fare far better in school and have a much lower rate of criminal activity, Southern culture (urban Black Americans absorbed the culture of violence that still permeates the South), lack of gun control, etc. Poor black Americans want the police, "defund the police" was only supported by a few fringe activists. What they want however, is a police force that is not racist, that is not brutal and corrupt, that is effective in solving crimes and keeping the streets safe. The Police Unions, dominated by white, middle age officials, have fiercely fought efforts to make the police accountable and rid police forces of their "bad apples." Until urban police shift their culture from that of an "occupying army" to one that works to aid and build trust in these communities, they will struggle to make progress in the war on crime. Cell phones are changing this dynamic, police behavior that could be covered up is now out in the open, and the pressure for change is increasing.
Is it "hate" to defend the right of women to privacy in public bathrooms?
Treatment of transgender individuals is complicated, and shouldn't be politicized. If you go to any reststop now, you'll find uni-sex bathrooms that don't force such individuals into painful choices (offend women or risk abuse in the men's bathroom)
Is it "hate" to support a vision of individual liberty that doesn't include unbridled license to destroy unborn children?
I don't believe a fetus is a human being. That's a religious belief that has only emerged in the last 150 years or so, it's not in the Bible. I don't believe in a "right" to abortion, that's not in the Constitution. But I do believe that you don't have the right to impost your religious beliefs on me, that is in the Constitution (1st amendment).
Is it "hate" to seek to control rather than reward illegal immigration and the flood of drugs and disrespect for the law that our current policies promote?
It's hate when you use immigration as a dog whistle, instead of working to a compromise that would rationalize the immigration system, from granting citizenship to Dreamers (doing otherwise is simply vindictive), improving border security, providing more funding for the system of handling asylum requests and expedite expulsion, monitoring and removing people who overstay their Visas, etc.
Drugs are a totally different issue, they're not coming over the border, they're coming in trucks and ships. Mixing immigration and drugs is a red herring.