Tucker Carlson Interviews Steve Sailer on Black Lives Matter Deaths Data and the Floyd Effect

Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.

Up Next

Tucker Carlson: Charlie Kirk Said 'Go Max' on Jeffrey Epstein and Israeli Intelligence Claims

Tucker Carlson: Charlie Kirk Said 'Go Max' on Jeffrey Epstein and Israeli Intelligence Claims

14:28

Stephen A. Smith Sits Down With Candace Owens: Black Conservatives, Harvey Weinstein, and Why Democrats Lost

Stephen A. Smith Sits Down With Candace Owens: Black Conservatives, Harvey Weinstein, and Why Democrats Lost

1:01:59

Dave Rubin Faces the Far Left on Wokeism, Broken Cities, and Trump's Legacy in Heated Jubilee Debate

Dave Rubin Faces the Far Left on Wokeism, Broken Cities, and Trump's Legacy in Heated Jubilee Debate

1:41:05

Tucker Carlson Interviews Steve Sailer on Black Lives Matter Deaths Data and the Floyd Effect

Steve Sailer, the controversial data analyst who spent a decade banned from public speaking, sits down with Tucker Carlson to present striking CDC evidence that challenges the narrative around Black Lives Matter. Using government statistics tracking homicides and traffic fatalities from 2018 to 2023, Sailer argues that the movement's two major eras, the Ferguson effect and the Floyd effect, correlate with 15,000 to 20,000 incremental black deaths. This conversation covers demographic shifts, the 2016 election, deaths of despair among rural whites, and why Sailer believes the Democratic coalition requires a permanent scapegoat to survive.

June 25, 2024

The Mysterious Data Analyst Emerges

Tucker Carlson opens the conversation by noting the strangeness of finally meeting Steve Sailer in person. For years, Sailer has been what Matt Drudge once was—widely read but never acknowledged publicly. Everyone in the news business read his work, but Sailer himself remained a mysterious, untouchable figure. From 2013 to 2023, Sailer couldn't give a public speech anywhere. Every conference invitation ended the same way: six weeks later, an email would arrive explaining that the Southern Poverty Law Center or Media Matters had contacted the hotel, warning about potential Antifa protests and violence. The contracts were canceled.

But Sailer kept writing. In the past year, the ice finally started to break. He's been traveling the country, meeting people who've read him for years or just discovered his work. Yet the question remains: how did a numbers guy, effectively an informal academic or social scientist, become someone so dangerous that no one was allowed to meet or talk to him?

The Black Lives Matter Body Count

Sailer has spent three years raising what he calls "a stink" about the impact of Black Lives Matter on black lives. His conclusion, drawn from CDC data: during BLM's two eras of triumph—after Ferguson in 2015-2016 and during what was called the "racial reckoning" of 2020—the movement contributed to an incremental 15,000 to 20,000 extra black lives lost through homicides and traffic fatalities.

The vast majority of black shooting deaths, Sailer points out, occur at the hands of other blacks. In 2020, there was an enormous explosion in mass shootings with at least four dead or wounded at black social events. A 2016 New York Times study concluded that almost 75% of mass shootings with at least four victims take place in black-on-black events, typically Saturday night at the club or at funerals. Some are organized crime, strategic like in The Wire, but many are just one person disrespecting another, guns come out, and people start shooting.

Yet there's very little interest from the Democratic establishment in what Sailer calls "point of use gun control." Democrats obsess over "point of sale gun control"—keeping rural people from buying rifles legally at Walmart. But what actually worked in New York City from the 1990s into the 2010s under Giuliani, Bloomberg, and Bratton was discouraging people from carrying illegal handguns on the street. When people worried more about cops catching them carrying an illegal piece, they left their guns at their grandmother's house. Fewer guns on the streets meant fewer shootings, creating a virtuous cycle.

The George Floyd Effect: Week by Week Data

Sailer presents CDC data showing weekly deaths from 2018 into 2023. The graphs are striking. The blue line indicates the beginning of COVID lockdowns. The black line marks George Floyd's death. The red line shows the number of African Americans who died by homicide each week.

The pattern is unmistakable. The data bounces around with some seasonality in 2018 and 2019. Then George Floyd dies, and suddenly there's an enormous peak. The increase is immediate—probably by the Friday after Floyd died on Memorial Day. The elevated death rate slowly fades over the next four years into 2023, but never returns to the baseline.

The most murderous day in Chicago's storied history, blowing away even Al Capone's St. Valentine's Day Massacre, was May 31, 2020—six days after George Floyd's death. Eighteen Chicagoans were murdered that day. Why? The cops went down to the Magnificent Mile to keep it from being torched and looted. Word quickly spread that you could do anything in the neighborhoods and nobody would notice. Vengeance was taken for personal reasons, and it went on for several more years.

The pattern applies to motor vehicle deaths too. African Americans traditionally weren't bad drivers and didn't have the kind of problems with driving that they had with homicide. But after Floyd's death, there's a new plateau in traffic fatalities that has endured ever since. When the establishment said the biggest problem in America was imposing too much law and order on African Americans—pulling them over for speeding, checking for outstanding warrants, searching for illegal handguns—the cops responded by backing off. Traffic stops dropped dramatically. People started driving worse, drove faster, and carried illegal handguns more. The shootings and homicides went through the roof.

Historical Context: 1999 to 2021

Sailer's monthly CDC data going back to 1999 provides even more context. You can see 9/11 on the graph—3,000 Americans dying by homicide at the hands of Al-Qaeda. Most years show more murders in summer than winter, when people are out partying, but it's fairly consistent.

There's a visible increase during the Ferguson effect after Black Lives Matter emerged in 2014, which had been a pretty decent year for homicides. Murders went up dramatically in 2015-2016, which helped get Trump elected. Black Lives Matter activists were assassinating cops in Dallas and Baton Rouge, though that's been largely memory-holed. Jeff Sessions came in and told police departments they wouldn't be persecuted for doing their jobs. When Trump got rid of Sessions, murders started going up again slightly. Then came 2020 and the George Floyd racial reckoning—an enormous increase compared to anything else in the 21st century.

One reason these findings haven't gotten more attention is because the graphs are embarrassing. The black homicide death rate line is so much higher than the light brown Hispanic line. Hispanics in the 21st century did a pretty good job of lowering their murder rate until the racial reckoning reversed much of that progress. The blue line representing whites is an order of magnitude below the black line. Noticing these differences in homicide rates is considered bad taste.

Deaths of Exuberance vs. Deaths of Despair

During what Sailer calls the "Great Awokening" of the last decade, especially during the racial reckoning, two different kinds of deaths—homicides and car crashes, what he terms "deaths of exuberance"—became highly correlated. This contrasts with Angus Deaton and Anne Case's discovery of "deaths of despair" among the white working class.

In 2015, Deaton was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics. A couple weeks later, he and Case published an important paper showing that life expectancy for white working-class people without college degrees had been dropping in the 21st century. This wasn't supposed to happen. The causes appeared to be overdoses on painkillers, suicide, and alcoholism—deaths of despair.

But how did no one notice this for 15 years? Sailer's explanation: there are no organizations dedicated to the welfare of white working-class people. The fact that they were dying in great numbers of novel causes basically relied on two academics who found it interesting, and one happened to win the Nobel Prize just before their paper came out.

The Sackler Strategy and Rural Whites

Sailer references journalist Sam Quinones's theory about the evolution of the drug trade in this century. The Sackler family's Purdue Pharmaceuticals started their big push for opioid prescriptions around 2000. When Mexican cartels started selling black tar heroin, they had a strategy: don't sell to particularly violent people near media capitals. Sell to people who will overdose quietly in small towns in the Ohio River Valley that nobody cares much about.

According to Sailer, both the Sacklers and the Mexican drug cartels targeted rural whites, Appalachian whites, on purpose because they knew nobody would care when they died. It took until seven years into the Obama administration for anyone to notice that white working-class death rates were climbing.

The Democratic Coalition of the Fringes

Sailer outlines what he sees as the Democratic Party's grand strategy: as America becomes more diverse through immigration and interracial marriage, and as new identities like transgenderism are constantly generated, Democrats profit by being the party of diversity—the party of people from the fringes of American society, what they call "the marginalized."

This coalition includes immigrants, black church ladies, transgender people, Jews, Muslims, and many others. The Democrats have won the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections. But the problem is keeping this coalition of the fringes from turning on each other, from becoming a circular firing squad. Do black church ladies really get along well with gays, much less transgender people? Do Asian immigrants have much in common with Hispanic immigrants? As we're seeing with Jews and Muslims, these groups often don't like each other.

How can Democrats unite their coalition of the margins? Sailer's answer: by fostering racist animus against core Americans—people who demographically resemble George Washington, Ben Franklin, and John Adams. People who are white, male, straight, maybe homeowners, maybe married with kids. Make them the bad guys in the American narrative. That's the only thing Democrats and their colleagues in academia can think of to hold this diverse coalition together.

The Rise of Anti-White Racism in Prestige Media

Sailer points to an enormous increase in racist bigotry being expressed in the pages of the New York Times in this century—things that in the past would have been considered in poor taste and extremist. The Times put in significant effort explaining the racist, sexist slur "Karen" as an anti-white woman slur to their millions of subscribers, making sure they know just the right time to use it and ensuring they don't use it on any nonwhite woman named Karen.

Tucker Carlson notes the irony: his impression is that most of the New York Times readership consists of Karens—screechy, fragile, barren, NPR-listening, middle-aged lawyers. The Times isn't the failing New York Times anymore. They've done an excellent job identifying people who will pay to subscribe to have their worldview vindicated over and over again and to have inconvenient facts buried in the 27th paragraph.

Jeremy Carl's new book "The Unprotected Class" documents at length this trend toward ever more anti-white racism in respectable press, media, and Democratic speeches. It's finally starting to backfire. People are noticing how much awful stuff is said about core Americans who tend to vote Republican.

Why Do People Accept Anti-White Rhetoric?

Carlson asks why people put up with being told their children are evil for their skin color. Why don't they get their guns? Sailer's response: Republicans and whites have been reluctant to call out anti-white racism for what it is because they want to blame it on something with an impressive intellectual heritage—the Frankfurt School, Gramsci, critical race theory, Marcuse, Marxism, or Foucault. They convince themselves that what sounds like low-brow racist bigotry actually has deep philosophical roots.

But Sailer argues this is naive. Much of this rhetoric is coming from people with soft-degree majors who got diversity, equity, and inclusion sinecures in corporations and colleges. They're just expressing their basic prejudices and bigotry. We should be laughing at it, not taking it so seriously or giving it intellectual credibility.

The Legacy Majority Narrative

Sailer predicts that when whites become a minority in the country their ancestors founded, it won't stop. Whites will be treated as the "legacy majority"—always blamed for everything, never treated like the minority they're becoming in multiple states.

He gives the example of Emmett Till, the 14-year-old black child murdered in 1955 for making an aggressive pass at a married white woman in a store in the South. That was a big story at the time and helped lead to the civil rights era of the 1960s, then faded from newspapers. The New York Times mentioned Till's name twice in 1980 and four times in 2000. By 2018, they were mentioning him about one and a half times per week—about as often as Chief Justice John Roberts. It became a huge breaking news story. Sailer jokes that the Times had a jet at LaGuardia always fueled and ready to fly anywhere to report on the latest Emmett Till news.

This antiquarianism is increasing because liberals have been in charge of most things involving race since the 1960s and haven't accomplished much. They want to hide their record and focus people on pre-civil rights antiquity. You constantly hear about FDR's redlining of FHA loans in 1938 as the reason black neighborhoods have lower property values—not current crime rates or discipline in local schools. It's always some nefarious plot from 90 years ago.

What Actually Helps Black Americans

When asked if there's any effort to actually improve black lives, Sailer points to law and order and point-of-use gun control. Parts of the country run by Republicans tend to have somewhat better-performing black students. Frisco, Texas, a fast-growing suburb of Dallas that's 11% black and 20% Hispanic, has the smallest test score gap of any school district in the country and the highest black and Hispanic test scores in the United States.

Great liberal cities like San Francisco and Madison, Wisconsin, tend to have bigger gaps, not just because they have smart white people but because they do a lousy job educating blacks in such liberal, progressive environments. They fail at things like having well-disciplined schools and focusing on basics.

There's been a general trend of blacks who have choices—who are looking to get ahead and do good things for their kids—moving to the South, to Texas, to red states, and away from highly liberal parts of the country.

The 2016 Election and the Rust Belt Strategy

Sailer became known in 2016 for calling the election with some accuracy based on demographics, though he says that's an overstatement. What really happened is that in 2000, he became the most outspoken critic of the new GOP orthodoxy promulgated by Karl Rove and George W. Bush.

Rove's theory was that Republicans needed to push through amnesty and easier immigration because Latino voters would love them for bringing in fellow Latinos and would switch to voting Republican, especially for the Bush family. Jeb's son George P. Bush is half Mexican, so as the United States and Mexico demographically merge, the Bush dynasty of WASPs and Mexicans would carry on as the natural ruling class of an increasingly mestizo North America.

Sailer kept asking questions: Do Latinos really care that much about immigration policy? Are they sure Latinos want all their cousins from back home moving in with them? The one close Latino state is Florida, and do the Cubans there really care about Mexican illegal aliens? An awful lot of Latinos are in California, which will never go Republican again, and others are in Texas in large numbers. If Texas is up for play, then the Republican Party is in real trouble.

Sailer argued it would make more sense to look at the Electoral College map and notice all these Great Lake states in the Rust Belt where the white working class isn't anywhere near as Republican as in the South. Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania—these are really close in the Electoral College. Why not do things for the white working class in the north, such as limiting immigration so they can continue to be paid well, and focus on them?

The Republican establishment kept going with the Hispanic plan, including the big 2013 audit that convinced Marco Rubio they needed amnesty. But Sailer kept saying the way to win in the Electoral College was through these Rust Belt states around the Great Lakes. Trump didn't read Sailer's article, but what else was he going to do? That was the one path to the presidency. It almost worked again in 2020 under adverse circumstances.

Current Trends and Hispanic Voters

In Texas, the racial reckoning of 2020 when Democrats went basically nuts over blacks alienated quite a few Texas Latino Democrats. In California, it's less clear, and it doesn't really matter since California isn't much of a democracy at this point.

The good news in Texas is that Republicans have a pretty strong, loyal, steadfast white population. Unlike other Confederate states, Texans aren't tied into guilt over the South—they care about the Alamo. They have their own national narrative that helps keep them together, and they provide strong leadership for Hispanics. Hispanics are less domineering than people talked about in the past. They kind of look around at their upper-middle-class neighbors and think, "Oh, you're a Republican? That sounds pretty cool. I might be a Republican too." In California, the upper-middle class is Democratic, so Hispanics follow that lead.

Trump has taken the appeal of the Republican Party downscale compared to Mitt Romney. Romney did a pretty good job holding on to suburban upper-middle-class people, corporate executives, the frequent flyer population. Trump is picking up working-class people of all races. That's good, but it's also taking the Republican Party downscale intellectually. You're getting more conspiracy theories out of Republicans. The big question is whether Republicans can keep some competent, higher-brow people around.

What Happened to Ron DeSantis

A big question is how much of the current political landscape is about Trump's personality. In 2023-2024, it looked like Ron DeSantis had studied Trump and concluded that Trump had some interesting post-Romney ideas, and DeSantis was the competent, well-educated guy who reads all the fine print who could implement them. That didn't seem like a bad pitch.

But it didn't go over at all. As soon as Democrats started arresting Trump on various charges, that helped solve the Democratic nightmare that Republicans were going to nominate a competent 40-something to run against their octogenarian incumbent. Now we're stuck with a rerun. Sailer believes the legal persecution of Trump blunted DeSantis. Republicans went back to Trump thinking that if Democrats are going to arrest a major candidate—which is un-American and shameful in United States history—then they're going to stand by Trump. Democrats didn't get in the way. They let local politicians run amok, like with the New York case, and they got the nominee they wanted: Donald Trump. Now they're worried they'll get the president they don't want.

The Book: Noticing

Sailer's book is titled "Noticing," a slogan he took from George Orwell, who said that to see what's in front of one's nose takes a constant effort. Sailer is trying to make it easier for people to notice the realities they see around them and to understand that what they see with their own eyes in daily life is validated by the best social sciences.

There aren't two different realms of existence—the sublunary one where we make decisions about what neighborhoods our families should live in and what schools are good for kids, and then this higher realm of data that proves all those things we notice can't possibly be true because that would be a stereotype. Sailer's view is that it's all connected. There's just one reality, from personal anecdotes to what people dismiss as anecdotal data to the data itself. It all tells pretty much the same story.

The Scapegoat Strategy

When Carlson asks how previous civilizations held together in the face of knowledge of genetic and racial differences without being at war with themselves, Sailer points to religious doctrine that said God created everybody, so despite differences, we are all of equal value. Without that overlay, which we no longer have, how do you keep a society together?

Sailer's answer is grim: Democrats have been moving toward a sort of scapegoat solution, having a scapegoat who unites everybody else by being the locus of evil—namely whites. In the way the Democratic ecosystem works, it's all sorts of circles within circles. You get more points for being nonwhite, diversity points for being a woman, more diversity points if you were born a man, and so on.

Unifying around a scapegoat population does not have a good track record. What happens in the end? We don't know. Does it get worse, or will people start objecting? Sailer leaves the question hanging, but his book "Noticing" represents his effort to document what's happening right now, to be a historian of the present rather than a forecaster of the future.

Video Transcript

Link copied to clipboard!