.

[pragmatic liberal]

I doubt that most presidents would serve more than two terms anyway if the 22nd Amendment had never been passed.

Truman was eligible to serve a third term anyway and chose not to because of his unpopularity.

Eisenhower was old and ready to retire.

Reagan was suffering from Alzheimers and was nearing 80. He would not have run for a third term.

Clinton would have liked to run for a third term, but I don't know that he would actually have in the aftermath of the Lewinsky scandal. In fact, I could easily see his way "out" of the controversy would be to announce he would not seek a third term.

(Although I could see Clinton running for a non-consecutive third term in '04.)

The presidency is an extremely intense job and most presidents are completely exhausted by the end of two terms. Plus, the time-for-a-change factor in the electorate kicks into high gear after two terms. Even FDR would not have won a third term had it not been for the war in Europe. After 1936, FDR got a declining percentage of the vote in each of his next two elections. Most presidents would still be wise to leave after two terms.

Overall, I'd argue that term limits are largely unnecessary and anti-democratic. The one office in which I think term limits may have some usefulness are mayorships - in cities, it's very easy to build political machines which can entrench corruption, and term limits may have some use in that context. But at the national level and at most state levels I don't think they're necessary or desirable.