He's referencing not the vice of sloth, but the sort of productive margin discussed in Joseph Pieper's highly recommendable Leisure: The Basis of Culture (commonly appreciated among Burkean conservatives).
To the broader discussion:
Even if the sort of conservatism in view here (the sort associated with Edmund Burke, or in 20th century America with Richard Weaver) isn't in every respect non-political, it is in any case not to be identified with the current American Right. To the degree that it has political implications, its participants tend to favor, as regards the environment, a species of agrarian conservation (ala Wendell Berry, who was hardly "right wing"); as regard economics, Chestertonian Distributism (as opposed to Oligarchic Capitalism); and in general the common-law tradition (as distinct from alternatives including Libertarianism).
Even if some Americans who participate in this sort of conservatism voted for the current POTUS, they did so extremely grudgingly and are not excited about him. He has nothing to do with this sort of conservatism. There is no political party that represents it well, but some adherents may have preferred for example the American Solidarity Party (I mention this only by way of orientation to the sort of conservatism we're talking about, since many are not familiar).
Although I'm trying to clarify the political accusations, I want to echo the others who've emphasized that what's in view here is not fundamentally a political position, but a certain posture towards reality, society, history, and the good life.