I think the problem of "President for life" is a symptom of bad institutions, so I don't think it's a serious worry for a country like the US. However, a term limit of three or four terms may be worth it to stop this remote risk while rarely being a serious impediment on Presidents who legitimately want to run for re-election.
Ironically, term limits may be worst in places where actual "Presidents for life" reign.
This paper gives an explanation: if the President is no better than a bandit trying to plunder as much as he can, then it's better he stays for the long run - that means he has some incentive to enact policies that promote growth (so he can skim more off the top later). A series of short-term "bandits" will just try to plunder as much as they can in the limited time they have.
Poll
