I think in the long run historians will look at the Clinton/Bush presidencies in much the same way they look at the Hoover/FDR presidencies. Hoover's passivity toward developing economic problems is blamed for the stock market crash and the great depression, and FDR, whether you agree with what he did or not, did actually take on the problems and try to do something about them.
Similarly Clinton chose to react to growing terrorism in a very passive and ultimately ineffectual manner, which lead to 9/11. Even those who disagree with Bush's handling of the problem have got to admit that he is at least actively trying to do something about it.
There might be something to what you say. I don't know that much about Hoover - I know the popular mythology is that he fidlled while Rome burned and FDR rode in on his white horse and saved the day. But I don't indpendently know that to be true. What I do know is that there is good evidence to support the thesis that the New Deal did nothing to ameliorate the depression - 1939 was worse than 1932. It wasn't until WWII that things started moving again. So, if the myth that the New Deal got us out of the depression is just that, a myth, then perhaps there is at least a chance that Hoover is being unfairly maligned. Certainly today's RATs love comparing any repub president to Hoover just as they continue to idolize FDR.
I do concede that even given all that you may have a point - it just goes against my grain to say anything positive about FDR since he was a Stalin loving conniving liar, that changed the US from a country with a fairly limited federal government, to a country where the federal government has something to say about every aspect of American life.