Clint Eastwood's film, J. Edgar, provides an opportunity, or at least a nudge, that it is perhaps time to try and judge the man fairly. His reputation has taken some 30-odd years of calumny either by direct (and usually false) accusation or by sly hints and nudges until today he is considered to be a monster. I have no particular view simply because I know little or nothing of the man but I do recognise a witch hunt when it is in full cry! John Preston in yesterday's Telegraph puts up, if not a stout defence of the man, at least a plea for a fair and factual weighing of the pros and cons of his life. Like all men, Hoover had his faults, and the 'Big Men' of any age tend to have virtues and vices to match - think Churchill, Roosevelt, and so on. However, as Preston points out, one thing cannot be gainsayed, Hoover turned the original FBI from a gang of incompetent, corrupt rascals into a superb police force and in doing so insisted on a scientific approach to crime-fighting. The FBI were the first to have a national fingerprint database and Hoover encouraged his newly formed forensic department to investigate the possible uses of blood type and handwriting analysis as well as wire-tapping techniques. Undoubtedly he stayed in office for too long and thus his individual enemies became over time battalions. Still, to be attacked by both Richard Nixon and Harry Reid is, I feel, no mean achievement!
Agreed. Let's focus on the good points. Would his detractors rather he were an ineffectual saint?
Posted by: Whyaxye | Sunday, 22 January 2012 at 12:06
Some of them would, I fear, and for very good reason, too!
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 22 January 2012 at 14:30
Hoover looked really cute in an apron with his little "buddy" Clyde Tolson close at hand.
I have a copy of the photo if you've missed it.
Posted by: Andra | Sunday, 22 January 2012 at 23:34
I'll give it a miss but thanks all the same!
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 23 January 2012 at 09:00