ShareThis Page
George Will

Gowdy aimed to close the circle of South Carolina's history

| Saturday, April 28, 2018, 5:11 p.m.
Rep. Trey Gowdy.
Rep. Trey Gowdy.


Trey Gowdy's emotions sometimes bubble disconcertingly close to the surface, but unlike many members of the political class, he is not all surface. At a breakfast four years ago, the South Carolina Republican had tears in his eyes as he explained when he would leave Congress: after Tim Scott, a Republican congressman who had been appointed to the Senate in 2013 when Jim DeMint resigned, had been elected in his own right. This, Gowdy said at that breakfast, would close the circle of his state's history.

Scott, an African-American, was born in 1965, 44 days after the Voting Rights Act was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson. The 1960 census had recorded South Carolina as 34.8 percent African-American. It was only about 27 percent African-American when Scott was elected in 2014 to complete DeMint's unfinished term, and was elected to a full term in 2016.

So, at the end of 2018, Gowdy, after eight years representing northern South Carolina's booming Greenville-Spartanburg area, will put Washington in his rearview mirror. The nation's capital will be duller because of the departure of him and his myriad hairstyles. He will not miss it but will miss his weekly dinners with Scott at the Capitol Hill Club, a Republican hangout.

A former prosecutor, Gowdy ran for Congress in part to get a respite from things that prosecutors must stare at unblinkingly. There was the 9-year-old girl with cerebral palsy who was beaten to death by her mother's boyfriend. Gowdy's eyes are moist as he says that the girl's picture is on his desk. Staring down such evils is, he says, particularly arduous for someone like him, because “if you've got no faith, you've got nothing to lose.” He, a devout Christian, thought it was “time to do something else.”

When he first ran for public office, a friend congratulated him for being up to 20 in polls that showed him losing 80-20. When in 2010 he ran for Congress against a six-term Republican incumbent, he surfed into office on that year's Tea Party wave. And he was immediately “miserable,” until he began his friendship with Scott.

As a member of three key committees (Oversight and Government Reform, Judiciary and Intelligence), Gowdy has been at the epicenter of controversies. These have included Benghazi, the two parties' dueling memos about Russian interference in the 2016 election and the Mueller investigation. When his fellow Republicans on the Intelligence Committee faulted the FBI, CIA and NSA for concluding “with high confidence” that Russia preferred Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, Gowdy said that the committee's own evidence showed that Russian involvement in the election was “motivated in whole or in part by a desire to harm her candidacy or undermine her presidency had she prevailed.”

Politics as he envisioned it would be a vocation in which participants asked themselves: What cause do I believe in strongly enough that I am willing to lose for it? Now, Gowdy says, the dominant question is: What am I willing to do to win? At 53, he says he wants to go somewhere “where facts matter.” So, he probably will not teach in a university.

Gowdy and Scott have co-authored a book (“Unified: How Our Unlikely Friendship Gives Us Hope for a Divided Country”) that is dedicated to one of Scott's grandfathers and one of Gowdy's grandmothers: “In the segregated age in which they lived, the two never met. But two generations later, their grandsons became the best of friends.”

George F. Will is a columnist for Newsweek and The Washington Post.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me