Is Bush a failed president?

Democrats, liberal historians and even a majority of U.S. voters already consider George W. Bush a “failed” or “poor” president ‘ in fact, perhaps, “the worst president in American history.”

Only a thin line of loyal Republicans, led by Bush’s departing top political aide, Karl Rove, thinks Bush will be vindicated in the end, both historically and politically.

Which is it? I think the jury is still out — and ought to be — because Bush’s place in history will depend on the outcome of the Iraq War, Bush’s signature undertaking.

If the war proves to be a catastrophe, Bush will have to be considered a failure, even if it’s Democrats in Congress who deny him the victory that his backers now believe is possible.

My Fox News commentary partner, Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard, claims that Bush should be likened to the much-reviled Abraham Lincoln of 1863, before the Union began winning victories in the Civil War.

In this vision, the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is a figure parallel to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, who developed the strategy that defeated the Confederacy.

It’s conceivable, but only barely, that Petraeus’ counterinsurgency strategy could undermine the Sunni insurgency in Iraq and pave the way for a political reconciliation that produces a stable, American-allied semi-democracy in Iraq.

If this great turnaround occurs — and if the consequence is a restoration of America’s standing in the world — then Bush could yet go down in history as a near-great president on the order of Harry S. Truman, who was as disrespected in his time as Bush is now.

After the United States won World War II on his watch, Truman’s Gallup Poll approval rating soared to 87 percent, not far below Bush’s historic 92 percent in October 2001.

With the United States mired in the Korean War, however, Truman’s approval rating was 22 percent in 1952, just about where Bush’s is today.

Many historians now place Truman among the near-greats — along with Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and James K. Polk, who stole the Southwest from Mexico — because he launched the Marshall Plan after World War II and developed the containment strategy that ultimately won the Cold War.

Unfortunately for Bush, another scenario is more likely — a Vietnam-like scenario in which, despite late victories on the battlefield, the United States suffers defeat because its public and politicians lack the will to sustain the effort.

On other fronts, Bush has few accomplishments that would offset disaster in Iraq and give him a place in history above “failed.” His only lasting legacy, it appears, will be a Supreme Court dominated by conservatives.

Rove still thinks Bush will be vindicated on Social Security reform and health savings accounts — plans whereby individuals own their benefit plans and carry them as they change jobs.

Bush’s tax cuts, favoring the rich, were designed to increase the nation’s overall wealth. Economic growth has been decent, but it hasn’t been widely shared. And Bush has done nothing to get control of the impending fiscal crisis brought on by the retirement of baby boomers.

And even though he helped keep Republicans in power, Bush could not convince them to side with him on immigration reform.

Many of Bush’s problems stem from the same source — his failure to be a “uniter, not a divider,” as he promised in 2000. As I’ve written before, he should go down in history as “the great polarizer.”

As to being “the worst president in history” — as charged by many Democrats — Bush does not match James Buchanan, who encouraged Southern secession, or corruption-stained presidents such as Nixon and Warren Harding. It would take a true catastrophe in the Middle East or another terrorist attack on American soil to put him in that category. Pray that it doesn’t happen.

Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill.