Can you pull off an actual discussion without resorting to the old "You don't agree with me so you must be the Red Menace"?
Hoover was reactionary and concerning race, was a reactionary bigot. Were people more conservative socially back then goes without saying. But Hoover was at a level which was truly reactionary. For example, believing any black who wanted equality, or any pacifist or dissenter or anybody else who critiqued the status quo was a Socialist or a true threat to America at least and a spy at worst (take into account the Beatles, John Lennon and Charlie Chaplin).
They would not have done the same thing. Hoover's rule was based on his character, not his position. Hoover did not just go after crime, he went after anybody who he disagreed with socially or who dissented against the existing order of things.
That as an excuse for his actions is out and out ridiculous. His most heinous actions weren't about any normal political position as his post was, nor would his post require any of those heinous actions. He didn't just wiretap to stop crime (which was legal back then and I believe until the mid 60's), he wire tapped to monitor anybody he disagreed with or thought presented a threat to his position. He blackmailed people, violated their civil liberties, and destroyed their careers and lives for the two reasons that they either were people he disagreed with politically or socially and thought, in his twisted mind, were true threats to America or feared presented a threat to his political power. Hoover abused his power, and did so to fulfill ideological gratification and his own lust to be in control. Excusing that because he was in a political post is like excusing the Surgeon General of those things because he was in a political position.