I'd say there isn't yet a consensus on HW Bush.

Within the last year or so, Jon Meacham's Destiny and Power was released, which was a pretty good read, in my opinion, but I believe it was given a bit of a hard time for going light on Bush. I know as I read the book, I got the impression a few times that there were points where he could have been more critical; at the same time, there are other points where he doesn't seem to pull any punches, such as in discussing HW Bush's opinions about his son's shortcomings as a president. Well, more Cheney's shortcomings as VP: he thought the VP should follow the president's lead regardless of their feelings, as he thought he had done with Reagan. He believed Cheney ran sort of a 'White House within a White House' (using pseudo-quotes because I do not believe this was the actual terminology used).

The problem as I understand it (and this applies to other recent presidents, like HW Brands' recent Reagan biography, as well as any biography of Clinton, W. Bush [though I'm looking forward to Jean Edward Smith's forthcoming book], and Obama) is that a lot of times, the families will attach strings to the usage of certain documents, which can make it difficult to get a comprehensive view of the president. If you can only present the figure in a certain light, it really limits your abilities as a writer from telling the whole story.

The other book about him I'm aware of that's been released recently was the biography by George W. Bush of his father, 41, which was an enjoyable, crisp read; as Bush explains in the preface, he wrote it because with the only other father-son president pair in US history (John and John Quincy Adams), there isn't any document that gives John Quincy's feelings about his old man and how successful or unsuccessful his presidency was, so he wanted to help future historians along. As far as academic discussion goes, however, this book is effectively straight out and can be argued to border on a hagiography.

So, in essence, I would say no, there is not yet a consensus on HW Bush's presidency that has been informed by the passage of time and the ramifications of his policy decisions, but the closest bet you have is Jon Meacham's. In addition to that, I'm sure plenty of books that go over general US history or discuss the 90's without focusing on Bush do provide opinions on his presidency, but I don't believe they constitute a consensus opinion.