I have been thinking about this issue for quite a while now, back when some Dem rep proposed it back in 2002.
The problem is this. We aren't a democracy. Simple. The founding fathers saw problems with mob rule then, and I can see how it can be a problem today. Quite a few things we hold near and dear, as the minority party, are based on the rules of a republic, not on a democracy.
Take the filibuster. That is inherently undemocratic, along with voting for Representatives of any sort. Democracy (big D) means the people do the governing directly. Given an informed society without too many people, not a problem. Once things get spun every which way, and you have something more complicated than what socks the nation should wear, it becomes nessicary to give yourself a proxy, whose interest is the common good.
More below.
This brings us to the 22nd Amendment.
As Kos and many others have said before, after the second race, an incumbent is basically set. They are the rep of an area, and it is quite hard to unseat them, scandals aside. Putting this concept into work at a presidental level, with a person that "plays it safe" for the first two terms, we could easily have a horrible president for a long time.
Secondarily, at a human level, we need change. Stagnation of ideas is what I fight as a progressive/liberal. Look at the fundies, they want things to be the same as they were back before the Great Depression. That's a change from now, but we have to move forward. We on the other hand, want the society to progress, via universal healthcare, increased autonomy, etc. We both want change, olny in opposite directions.
I believe that having one group of people, or set of ideas, in a position of power will cause a stagnation. I talk to the same people at work every day, about politics, and then I come here, or go to other discussion sites. I can see the difference in ideas put forth, from different groups of people. Left alone, my group at work would still think that Saddam was in charge of 9/11.
It is the input of new information and perspectives that brings about new ideas, many of them good.
In short, the 22nd has more likely done more for us as a country as most people will realize. It has fostered change when people didn't want it, but had to happen, as well as ended many downward spirals that we've been in (i.e. Reagan).
Thanks Markos, for bringing up the issue again, and thanks to anyone who reads and/or contributes to the discussion.
:) -Faux