Oh dear.
I knew someone would bring this up
Is there some human failing that affects second-term presidents, like arrogance or sheer fatigue? To some degree, perhaps. But the main problem is not personal but institutional - or rather constitutional, as embodied by the 22nd Amendment limiting presidential tenure.
More below . . .
Now really, term limits on the President, no matter who he or she is are really a very good idea.
In fact, in 1951 the New York Times itself said
(no link, subscription database-- check out your local public library if you want to read the whole editorial)
For the rest: The strong arguments which established the century and half old tradition against a third term still prevail, and has gained increasing force from the fact of the enormously larger powers of the Presidency and the obvious hazards of too long continued centralization of these powers in the hands of any individual, however worthy. We welcome the adoption of the Amendment.
And now that the Presidency has apparently unlimited powers, is not the argument that that power should be at least limited in time even stronger.
Not according to the good professors.
Should presidents - whether George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton - be denied the opportunity to serve their country and carry through their programs? Should they be allowed to govern without any accountability to voters? Should voters be denied two supreme powers - the right to give popular presidents more terms in office and to repudiate a failed president at the polls? "We ought to take a serious look and see if we haven't interfered with the democratic rights of the people," Ronald Reagan said in 1986.
But of course, if the Gipper said it, it must be right.