I think it comes down to how you see things. Imagine that
people, in general, had a strange moral notion that it was good and
proper to pay a monthly bill demanded by 3M or some other large
corporation, irrespective of the value they derived from its
existence. In such a case, I would expect this corporation to be
utterly dysfunctional, and would say that we should predict it
would remain so, until people had awoken to the situation, and
begun refusing to pay the bill. Beforehand, I believe you could
make as many rules as you liked regarding its corporate governance,
and they’d all come to nothing, because the motivation of the
organization as a whole would be out of whack.

Now when it comes to term limits specifically, they move things
further in what I have always seen as a bad direction, providing
even more opportunity for people to be confused as to who they
should blame. Consider King George: most people know of him, but in
what terms — as the tyrant against whom the colonies revolted. Now
consider the judges section on your ballot; how many of the names
even ring a bell? Extend that to the rest of the ballot, and you’ll
end up electing a president Kardashian — literally.

Furthermore, re-election provides about the only motivation
toward good behavior that I am able to identify, and that includes
the aspect of staying on the lobbyist gravy train. Let’s just
stipulate that term limits end that, and what do you have? What is
the motivation to do right?