My preference is to allow politicians to serve any number of nonconsecutive terms, at least in the House. Forcing representatives to sit out a couple years in between terms keeps them in touch life outside the beltway to an extent, and it reduces the conflict of interests from running for office while holding office (the need to take time off to campaign, opportunities to engage in favor-trading, necessity of fundraising for reelection during your time in office, etc), but it still allows experienced legislators to hold office again so long as voters in their districts approve of their records at a couple years remove (and approve of what they've done with themselves during their time out of office). It would also have the benefit of creating a deeper bench of experienced legislatures with proven track records, since any given seat would have to rotate between at least two people.
But that's specific to the House, which is designed to have more turnover, to be more immediately responsive to the electorate, and to be in closer touch with the people they're representing. The arguments against term limits are stronger for the Senate, which is supposed to be longer-serving and more insulated from the voters, and where longer individual terms reduce the problems of running for office while holding office (i.e. a one year campaign period for reelection overlaps 1/6 of a Senator's term, but 1/2 of a Representative's term).
But that's specific to the House, which is designed to have more turnover, to be more immediately responsive to the electorate, and to be in closer touch with the people they're representing. The arguments against term limits are stronger for the Senate, which is supposed to be longer-serving and more insulated from the voters, and where longer individual terms reduce the problems of running for office while holding office (i.e. a one year campaign period for reelection overlaps 1/6 of a Senator's term, but 1/2 of a Representative's term).