The respected magazine National Journal a couple of weeks ago gave its readers an unusual perspective on President George Bush’s performance: a calm, reasoned analysis not from political spinners but toilers in the field of economics. The results should be remembered when the presidential race gets hotter this fall.

Economists are known for not agreeing with each other on anything, but the editors of National Journal point out that the distinguished group they gathered have “at least one thing in common – a reputation for staying out of politics and for delivering unbiased analysis.” Based on the grades over five categories, they have a second thing in common: a general, though not identical assessment of the president’s performance.

The five categories for the dozen economists were short-term fiscal policy (B+), long-term fiscal policy (C-), international economics (B-), regulation (B) and leadership (B-). Out of a total of 60 grades, six of the eight A’s (including plus or minus) the president received were for short-term fiscal policy; both of the F’s he got were under the heading of long-term fiscal policy. For international economics, 10 of the 12 economists gave the president B’s; under regulation, he received nine B’s.

“As a group, economists rate Bush’s tax cuts and spending hikes somewhere between a catastrophe and a calamity in the long term,” National Journal concludes. But, under international economics, “Most of the economists rated dollar policy as a big success,” saying that Treasury Secretary John Snow “has accomplished a major feat – tiptoeing away from the ‘strong-dollar’ policy of the Clinton years, which had allowed what most said was an overvaluation of the dollar.”

Under the leadership heading, the president “gets credit for sending investors a clear and consistent message that cutting taxes would be the top priority for his administration, and for sticking with that commitment even when terrorism and political setbacks came along.”

Whether that consistency is warranted given the change of events in the world may explain why the economists were most divided on this question, with grades ranging from A- to D. But compared with the overheated campaign rhetoric, in which the president is either a genius or a dunce, the grades from these economists open a discussion of where the administration has done well and where it must improve. That’s not quite as exciting as a supercharged election ad, but is infinitely more useful.