U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about developments in Iraq and civil unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, from the White House in Washington, August 18, 2014. (Larry Downing/Reuters) 
 
 As the tumultuous situation in Ferguson, Mo., entered its second week, President Obama stood before the nation and offered a mild, balanced plea. 
 
 There is “no excuse” for excessive use of deadly force by police, he observed at a Monday news conference; the family of Michael Brown, gunned down by a white officer under suspicious circumstances, deserves justice. But violent protests “undermine” that cause. Americans should “unite with each other and understand each other,” “listen and not just shout.” 
 
 If Obama’s words were anodyne, his affect was somber and subdued. In a nation roiling with anger, fear and confusion, the president alone appeared unfazed. 
 
 To which I say: Good for him. 
 
 One thing that’s not in short supply in America right at the moment is emotional rhetoric. The airwaves and newspapers and Twitter feeds are thick with it, in case you haven’t noticed. Therefore, it’s not immediately clear what purpose would be served by presidential venting, especially in the midst of a bitter off-year election campaign, when his every word is bound to be politicized and polarized. 
 
 Others disagree. They want Obama to raise his voice, to speak from his heart and from his experience as an African American, the first to occupy the White House. 
 
 MSNBC’s Michael Eric Dyson, a professor at Georgetown University, reproaches the president for not using his “bully pulpit” to “tell us as a nation what happens when festering rage in a community then begins to ignite and then begins to consume not only that community but the people around the nation who are empathetic.” 
 
 Maureen Dowd of the New York Times says Obama has gone from “hot commodity to wet blanket” and demands to know why he won’t “stop going to Beverly Hills to raise money and go to St. Louis to raise consciousness.” 
 
 What distinguishes Obama from these critics, of course, is that he has actual responsibilities, of which the most pressing are to keep a highly dangerous situation from getting any worse and to supervise an impartial investigation of the horrific event that led up to it. If he were to deliver the lecture Dyson recommends, or hold a consciousness-raising session — whatever that is — in St. Louis, he might put both objectives at risk, as he succinctly explained Monday. 
 
 Having assigned the Justice Department to look into the case, he said, “I’ve got to make sure that I don’t look like I’m putting my thumb on the scales one way or the other.” 
 
 Obama’s swift mobilization of Justice was appropriate. Founded in 1870 for the purpose of protecting Southern blacks during Reconstruction, the department also played a crucial role in civil rights struggles during the 1960s. 
 
 Under Eric Holder, the department has stepped up civil rights enforcement generally and supervision of local police in particular. In terms of practical effect, putting DOJ on the case is worth 1,000 speeches. 
 
 At a news conference on Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder said "few things have affected" him as much as his visit to Ferguson, Mo., on Wednesday, when he met with the family of 18-year-old Michael Brown. (AP) 
 
 By the way, if Obama’s eloquence really did have the power to solve real-world problems, we might not be facing this sickening mess in Ferguson to begin with, given how often the president has addressed America’s troubled race relations already. 
 
 You might say the same for the Middle East, where Obama’s lofty verbal outreach to “the Muslim world” has given way to airstrikes against a monstrous Islamist insurgency in Iraq. 
 
 To some extent, Obama has himself to blame for the latest criticism of his leadership. He has encouraged magical thinking about his presidency — from the day he launched his candidacy on a vague promise of hope and change to his recent promises of “executive action” on a host of issues from immigration to taxes. Indeed, given that history, there is a certain poignancy in the pleas from his supporters for a dose of the old charisma now. 
 
 Uncharismatic though it may be, his response so far to Ferguson is perfectly presidential. In fact, his cautious rhetoric may be a sign that he is coming to a more seasoned understanding of the “bully pulpit” and its limitations. 
 
 When it comes to events like the death of Michael Brown and the subsequent violence in Ferguson, words fail. This time, we might have to settle for action. 
 
 Read more from Charles Lane’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook. ||||| NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images President Barack Obama speaks on the situations in Iraq and in Ferguson, Mo., at Martha's Vineyard, Mass., Aug. 14, 2014. 
 
 Last year, right before President Barack Obama made his unannounced appearance in the White House briefing room to personally address the acquittal of George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin’s killer, on murder charges, I was among those who argued, no, the president shouldn’t be called on to make a statement about the case. 
 
 Although the words Obama ultimately offered were powerful, moving and appropriate, I believed then, and still do, that no matter how unjust the verdict felt to so many Americans—including me—the president of the United States shouldn’t tread anywhere near the possibility of second-guessing a duly rendered jury verdict. 
 
 Why? 
 
 Because, as I wrote at the time, no matter how Obama felt about Trayvon’s death—as a parent, as a black man, as a compassionate human being—it falls to the president, as the head of government and head of state, “to represent the American system” even “with all its attendant flaws.” 
 
 But last week we saw the system run amok—police in Ferguson, Mo., using equipment meant for a war zone to disperse crowds that were, for the most part, peacefully demonstrating to express outrage over a teenager being killed by a police officer in broad daylight—followed by the selective release of details about the case that appear, pretty clearly, to be meant to shield the shooter from responsibility and cast a negative light on the shooting victim. And for that reason I believe Obama was absolutely right to speak directly last Thursday about events in Ferguson. 
 
 I’ve been surprised, though, by some of the criticism that Obama has taken over the last couple of days by critics who feel that he has somehow shirked responsibility in this situation. That “President Obama failed”—as Michael Eric Dyson said Friday while hosting MSNBC’s The Ed Show—“in his leadership to say what he really knows and has lived as a black man in America.” Or that, according to CNN’s Marc Lamont Hill, Obama, in his general appeal for calm on all sides, “failed to acknowledge the legitimacy of black anger.” 
 
 It strikes me that the president’s words last week were exactly right. 
 
 Obama offered condolences to Michael Brown’s family. He called on police to conduct an “open and transparent” investigation—something they’ve failed to do. He called out police use of “excessive force,” announced that he’d been in direct contact with Missouri’s governor and explained what steps he instructed Attorney General Eric Holder to take. Indeed, he declined to cast the incident in specifically racial terms and instead emphasized that his priority was restoring peace and calm. 
 
 But he did emphasize that government—including police—must uphold “the dignity of every single man, woman and child.” And he left the door open to more directly address race, as he did after Trayvon’s death, in his own time. 
 
 Yes, President Obama can, and should, offer a more comprehensive response for Americans. He should connect Brown’s killing to the fatal shooting last week of unarmed Ezell Ford by the Los Angeles Police Department, the vicious beating last month of Marlene Pinnock by a California Highway Patrol officer and last month’s choking death of Eric Garner at the hands of a New York City police officer while other officers stood watching. 
 
 That’s not just an issue for the first black president. It’s an issue that any president should address. But although there are a lot of different voices that can underscore the racial injustice that surrounds Ferguson and the killing of Michael Brown, there’s only one person who can direct FBI resources and order the Justice Department to investigate a civil rights violation: Obama. And I’d rather see someone who does understand black anger fulfilling that role rather than focusing on making speeches. 
 
 The president may yet have to get more involved—to take over the investigation of Brown’s death or to federalize the Missouri National Guard—if Gov. Jay Nixon and local law enforcement continue to demonstrate that they can’t resolve the situation without trampling over the people of Ferguson. 
 
 It’s worth noting, though, that the man Americans elected twice to lead them is approaching Ferguson the same way he approaches the Middle East, Ukraine, Newtown, immigration, Birthers and the debt ceiling. He’s a measured guy. In this kind of a crisis, that’s a feature, not a bug. 
 
 And if you ask me, so far he’s found the right balance between his role as explainer in chief and his role as the chief executive. ||||| His bored-bird-in-a-gilded-cage attitude, the article said, “has left him with few loyalists to effectively manage the issues erupting abroad and at home and could imperil his efforts to leave a legacy in his final stretch in office.” 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, an early Obama backer, noted that “for him, eating his spinach is schmoozing with elected officials.” 
 
 First the president couldn’t work with Republicans because they were too obdurate. Then he tried to chase down reporters with subpoenas. Now he finds members of his own party an unnecessary distraction. 
 
 His circle keeps getting more inner. He golfs with aides and jocks, and he spent his one evening back in Washington from Martha’s Vineyard at a nearly five-hour dinner at the home of a nutritional adviser and former White House assistant chef, Sam Kass. 
 
 The president who was elected because he was a hot commodity is now a wet blanket. 
 
 The extraordinary candidate turns out to be the most ordinary of men, frittering away precious time on the links. Unlike L.B.J., who devoured problems as though he were being chased by demons, Obama’s main galvanizing impulse was to get himself elected. 
 
 Almost everything else — from an all-out push on gun control after the Newtown massacre to going to see firsthand the Hispanic children thronging at the border to using his special status to defuse racial tensions in Ferguson — just seems like too much trouble. 
 
 The 2004 speech that vaulted Obama into the White House soon after he breezed into town turned out to be wrong. He misdescribed the country he wanted to lead. There is a liberal America and a conservative America. And the red-blue divide has only gotten worse in the last six years. 
 
 Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. 
 
 The man whose singular qualification was as a uniter turns out to be singularly unequipped to operate in a polarized environment. 
 
 His boosters argue that we spurned his gift of healing, so healing is the one thing that must not be expected of him. We ingrates won’t let him be the redeemer he could have been. 
 
 As Ezra Klein wrote in Vox: “If Obama’s speeches aren’t as dramatic as they used to be, this is why: the White House believes a presidential speech on a politically charged topic is as likely to make things worse as to make things better.” 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 He concluded: “There probably won’t be another Race Speech because the White House doesn’t believe there can be another Race Speech. For Obama, the cost of becoming president was sacrificing the unique gift that made him president.” 
 
 So The One who got elected as the most exciting politician in American history is The One from whom we must never again expect excitement? 
 
 Do White House officials fear that Fox News could somehow get worse to them? 
 
 Sure, the president has enemies. Sure, there are racists out there. Sure, he’s going to get criticized for politicizing something. But as F.D.R. said of his moneyed foes, “I welcome their hatred.” 
 
 Why should the president neutralize himself? Why doesn’t he do something bold and thrilling? Get his hands dirty? Stop going to Beverly Hills to raise money and go to St. Louis to raise consciousness? Talk to someone besides Valerie Jarrett? 
 
 The Constitution was premised on a system full of factions and polarization. If you’re a fastidious pol who deigns to heal and deal only in a holistic, romantic, unified utopia, the Oval Office is the wrong job for you. The sad part is that this is an ugly, confusing and frightening time at home and abroad, and the country needs its president to illuminate and lead, not sink into some petulant expression of his aloofness, where he regards himself as a party of his own and a victim of petty, needy, bickering egomaniacs. 
 
 Once Obama thought his isolation was splendid. But it turned out to be unsplendid.
– In the wake of the Michael Brown shooting, President Obama has taken flak for not speaking more forcefully—or more personally—about it. (Eric Holder, for instance, has recounted his own troubles with police as a black man in America.) Well, the president's critics are wrong, writes Charles Lane at the Washington Post. The last thing we need is more "emotional rhetoric." Pundits are free to say what they want, but Obama "has actual responsibilities, of which the most pressing are to keep a highly dangerous situation from getting any worse and to supervise an impartial investigation of the horrific event that led up to it." At the Root, David Swerdlick makes a similar case, arguing that the president's measured comments have been "exactly right" so far. "Although there are a lot of different voices that can underscore the racial injustice that surrounds Ferguson and the killing of Michael Brown, there’s only one person who can direct FBI resources and order the Justice Department to investigate a civil rights violation: Obama," he writes. "And I’d rather see someone who does understand black anger fulfilling that role rather than focusing on making speeches." Looking for a rebuttal? Maureen Dowd would love to see Obama flash some black anger. "Why should the president neutralize himself?" she asks in the New York Times. "Why doesn’t he do something bold and thrilling? Get his hands dirty? Stop going to Beverly Hills to raise money and go to St. Louis to raise consciousness?" Click for her full column, or Swerdlick's, or Lane's.