The highlighted part at the end lamenting that the Constitution didn't say what government should do for you. Doesn't let him bring about redistibutive change. Ummmm....communism.
That is the OPPOSITE of what he is saying. Read the final portion again----
...one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. "The civil rights movement became so court focused...there was a tendency to lose track of... activites on the ground"
i.e., it is a TRAGEDY-- his word-- that the Civil Rights Community began to expect the Government to step in & fix everything, rather than try to institute changes to help themselves
via the private sector
. "In some ways we [i]still suffer
from that"[/i]--- i.e. the Community still
expects Government to step in, and it should NOT.
The advice he's giving is that the Civil rights movement should STOP expecting the Courts to step in & offer up, ahem, 'reparations'-- but instead make their OWN reparations by building a more successful, influential & wealthy Community in the private sector
-- to COMPETE in the private sector.
That is the straight Conservative viewpoint, is it not? Less Government intervention, so people can work & achieve their own success, ON THEIR OWN, and then let them keep the wealth, power & influence that comes with their success?