I appreciate the vision of the ideologically strait-jacketed, morally rigid to the point of blindness Chief Executive that describes both Hoover and Bush. Yet Hoover was a thoughtful (though often wrong) and tireless communicator of his vision, through newspaper articles and speeches and private letters. He tried to turn the tide of the Depression through sheer persuasion and his historical record is a testament to that effort.

Yet Bush is such an intellectual lightweight that the comparison is an insult to Hoover. When have we ever heard one utterance from this dull fundamentalist President that was thoughtful and profound? He's not dumb, I guess- but he is painfully and pathetically shallow, so much so that I would forgive him more if he was truly stupid and not just an idiot of his own making.

Amazing that any later American president could be compared unfavourably to Herbert Hoover, yet here we are.

Another splendid essay. Thank you.

first rate, excellent analysis. Thank you.

Warren G. Harding was stupid but personally charming, and his administration was as corrupt as could be (the Teapot Dome scandal was just one of several). Harding was also known for his verbal gaffes.

I agree with the first letter-writer that comparison between Bush and Hoover is unfair. Indeed, Blumenthal rejects the comparison himself in his penultimate paragraph.

While Hoover had a reputation as the "do nothing president," his life trajectory to the presidency was anything but do nothing. At the point in his life when the current inhabitant of the White House was rising at the crack of noon and shoving white powder up his nose, the PhD mining engineer Hoover was designing coal mines in China. And look at Hoover's hobby when he became wealthy -- he and his wife Lou translated from Latin and published an illustrated and annotated version of the 1556 mining classic, Georgius Agricola's De rerum metallica.

there are a number of problems with this analogy, as others have already intimated, but for me the key issues are culbability and competence. Hoover may well have had ideological blinkers which made difficult for him to address pressing problems, but these problems were not (as the author accepts) largely of this own making, but a long-term product of broader trends. Bush is not a bystander caught up in forces beyond his control, but someone who is directly responsible for his own downfall, and its attendent impact upon the world more generally. Ideology is an important issue, no doubt, but there is also the more basic question of competence. This may be an open question when it comes to Hoover, but with Bush there is really only one answer.

There was an article in Salon a while back, with quotes from a professor and some classmates of Bush's. One of his classmates wondered aloud how on earth anyone could go through four years at Yale without ever finding a single subject to be fascinated with. He does seem intellectually disengaged, as if he couldn't be bothered ever to study anything or think critically, especially self-critically.

The one thing that stuck in my mind about pre-Depression crisis Hoover was his statement about the punitive aspects of the post-World War I treaties. He said: "where I come from, we do not kick a man in the stomach after we have licked him." This shouldn't be read as excusing the Nazi response to these provisions, but to me, it showed decency. A man of some character, instead of a petty, vindictive and small man, grasping at a chance for revenge.

Hoover was competent and compassionate.

As the author points out, Hoover's rigid ideology (framework of ideas) was inadequate to handle the systemic problems leading to the depression and their aftermath.

Bush lives in platitudes. I have been waiting for years for the Bush administration to collapse on what Hanah Arendt titled an article, "The Politics of Lying." One who lies must be much more consistent because at any time, the card castle of lies could come crashing down. This administration lies all the time, and then some. It is also impervious to reason as everything is part of a politics to win elections. They have successfully trashed the legitimacy of, to name a few, science, teachers, politicans, labor unions and the courts. Without legitimacy, wise authority breaks down and the very institutions needed to craft a creative solution have been removed from their rightful place.

But, even more than this, the administration has practiced evil. Torture. Holding people without trial. Trashing the constitution with explicit actions such as illegal wire taps.

"Eichman in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil" by Hannah Arendt, 1965 provides insight into this administration.

And as others have pointed out, Bush should be prosecuted for plagiarism of George Orwell's classic, "1984."

Thanks once again for a thought-provoking column. A few thoughts:

1. However wrong Hoover was about the Depression (and clearly he was), at least the man was intelligent (and could be intellectually curious) and at least his misguidedness was not driven by a "I'm gonna whip my Daddy" mentality. Did people suffer during the Hoover years of the Depression? Surely. But he didn't blindly send American troops into harm's way simply to one-up his father.

2. Somehow I have to believe that if Katrina happened on Hoover's watch, the mobilization effort would have been sufficient enough and swift enough to save countless lives.

3. Brings to mind the "All in the Family" theme, "Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again", considering that what we have is far, far worse.

I agree with several of the comments - the analogy to Hoover is weak. Bush didn't inherit a weakened economy. He and his advisors have for all intents and purposes bankrupted the U. S. for who knows how many generations. There is nothing that we've seen about his presidency that even mildly suggest that he is capable of thoughtfully and carefully analyzing a situation and making an informed decision. He and his advisors have an agenda from which they will not sway. They do feint with things that on the most superficial of surfaces create enough spin to appear to be responsive and create ephemeral whiffs of change in the wind. The changes, however, conform to the status quo rather than reform an thoughtless administration that has been consistently 'blinkered'. I think that rather than a comparison to Hoover, we only need look at the evolution of social behavior in primates. Frans de Waal, in Our Inner Ape, makes some compelling comparisons of Bush behavior and alliance to examples that we often see in other primates both in the wild and in zoos. Bush has risen to power by the alliances that he's formed, rather than from success, strength, and intelligence. He can not eliminate his alliances because they are completely necessary for him to maintain his status. I'm fearful that someone from his alliances will soon rise to claim the top position in the troop and that rise will be because they've supported Bush's status.