Americans are famous for believing that, if there is anything that ails any part of society, an election will effect an almost miraculous cure. Ironically, they evince an almost equal disdain for those whom they have elected. But let's imagine for a second how things could actually be better by eliminating one particular election, the re-election campaign for President of the United States. Bear with me.
In the last 40 years, only 3 Presidents have lost their re-election campaigns. Ford lost in 1976 because he pardoned Nixon and was essentially Nixon's representative for the election. No surprise there. Bush Sr. faced the dreaded 2-front campaign. Ask the Germans about that. It never ends well. Carter was the only President who can fairly be regarded as being beaten in a straight-up normal campaign. What does that tell you? Incumbent Presidents, even bad ones like GWB, tend to win.
But think, for a minute, of what the re-election campaign does to a Presidency. From the minute, the President is sworn in the re-election campaign is lurking in the shadows. It affects every decision made in the first term. Fund-raising is also a standard part of the President's day. This preoccupation is a major issue for all Presidents. They have to raise money. They have to shape policy with an eye to re-election. Then they have to campaign. Add to that, the near-paralysis in the legislature as Senators and Representatives wait to see whether they will be dealing with a new administration or not. Of course, as I said above, a switch is unlikely but it does raise doubt, and it also increases partisan feelings.
A larger question one might ask is what the Presidency is for. What is it supposed to do? The simple answer could be "to preside". The President, in the fond dreams of the Framers, would help to knit together warring factions and would synthesize national policy out of all of the back and forth of the legislature. Oh, and protect the country from attack by foreigners. 1812 excepted, Presidents have done a reasonable job on the protecting bit. But the presiding bit leaves much to be desired.
I have come to believe that 2 4-year terms for Presidents is neither helpful nor desirable, and represents a prodigious waste of money. With a single 8-year term, a President would embark on his or her only term in the full knowledge that campaigning and fundraising would be over. The concern of the President would naturally go to thinking about posterity, about building a legacy. The Congress would know that it would be dealing with a single administration, barring impeachment, for 8 years, and that would tend to move the omnipresent struggle for political ascendancy back to the Congress where it properly belongs. The President would then be someone who presides.
It should be noted that a number of countries have adopted this system of an extended single term for President; France, for example. It seems to work well enough. I am aware, of course, that ideas that involve changes to the Constitution are as doomed as a bug in the toilet bowl. But this would seem to be one idea that has a chance of success.