Does the 22nd Amendment limiting Presidential terms actually hinder the President (in their second term) and make them less effective?
I understand the reasoning behind it, historically, but I don't care for it. One, it limits my choice should we ever actually have a good President.
Two, I think the "lame duck" label is accurate. Even if they're popular, everybody in Congress knows the President will be gone soon, even people in the same party. Why would a Congressperson push a President's agenda when they know a President will soon be gone, and they need to push their own agenda so they can tell their constituents how important and effective they are? Essentially, the Congressperson is always running for re-election. Now, if Congress had the same limits, at least the playing field would be somewhat leveled, but I still wouldn't care for the idea.
And third, I really think the historical fears were overblown. It's rarely been a serious issue. A small handful have tried, but only one actually succeeded.