As he assembles his economic team, Barack Obama faces a central strategic decision that only he can make. Starting with his "economic stimulus" plan, will he focus mainly on reviving the economy and relieving the financial crisis; or will he use the economic crisis as a vehicle to advance a more ambitious agenda of economic and social reform? The two approaches are at odds. The first aims at building political consensus and economic confidence; the second would almost certainly intensify political conflict and economic uncertainty.

On paper, the decision ought to be a snap. Every new president is assaulted by his own supporters, who want him to put their particular agendas atop his to-do list. That's already happening, as Obama allies clamor for speedy action to provide universal health insurance, combat global warming and support trade unions. But Obama—and the nation—would be better served if he concentrated for his first year on stabilizing the economy while patiently laying the groundwork for debates over his more far-reaching proposals.

The hallmark of this economic crisis has been its capacity to surprise: the desperate plight of the Big Three automakers is the latest reminder. We can expect more surprises, because the U.S. and global economies continue to weaken at a worrying pace. Consumer confidence in the United States is at its lowest point in 22 years of the weekly ABC News poll. In October, U.S. factory orders for durable goods (machinery, autos, appliances) dropped 6.2 percent. Abroad, signs are no better. Worldwide manufacturing production is declining at an 8 percent rate, reports JPMorgan Chase. Germany is in recession; China's growth has slowed sharply.

Against this backdrop, the parallel pursuit of crisis management and sweeping domestic reform is at best distracting. In practice, it may be politically poisonous. Superficially, the two objectives can be made to seem compatible. Obama can plug "green" investments as a way to restore job growth; he can tout a more efficient health-care system as a way to control health costs. But these debating points obscure as much as they reveal.

Any program to refashion the energy and health-care sectors—to take the obvious candidates—would be enormously complicated, controversial and contentious. The idea that the present crisis atmosphere would make congressional passage, even with Democratic majorities, easy is a fantasy. Some producers and consumers would win; others would lose. Proposals would create massive uncertainties for businesses and raise the probability of higher costs. To succeed in curbing greenhouse-gas emissions, for example, any "cap and trade" program must involve higher energy prices.

The notion that "green" investments would be large, permanent net creators of jobs is mostly a mirage. Somehow these investments must be paid for. If that happens through higher prices, higher taxes or cuts in other government programs, then "green" jobs will mainly substitute for some other class of jobs. As for curbing health-care costs, that's desirable. The trouble is that the first effect of Obama's health-care program would probably be the opposite. Expanding insurance coverage would initially raise health spending, as greater demand for medical care met a (relatively) fixed supply of doctors, hospitals and clinics.