And what if Reagan had been President for 20 years? It's a big picture argument. The fact Obama won on an accomplishment that had been considered politically toxic for decades is itself a signifier of that progress. What's to debate is whether, over the longer course of time, we're more likely to get where we need to be with potentially prolonged power or with limits on that power. It's my feeling that power is perpetual by nature. The longer it is sustained, the more freedom it is given, the more entrenched the status quo becomes and the harder it is to ultimately affect anything. By checking that power, you not only keep the public more attune and less complacent, you force the parties to have to adapt on issues and not be reliant on a singular individual/personality to carry them for a generation. Democracy has to be reflective of an ever-changing society, not of a particular leader's abilities.