“People have every right to be angry,” Senator Hillary Clinton said during her concession speech after the New Hampshire primary, “but they’re also hungry for solutions. … What is the best way to change people’s lives so we can all grow together?”

How indeed?

Change strategies fall into two broad categories: incremental and disruptive. Incremental change involves “tweaking the system” which, over time, will gradually move us towards “a new normal.” Disruptive change takes place when something shakes us out of our complacency, forcing us to do something drastically different.

Paul Krugman, Steve Chapman, and other columnists have argued that the big dreams that go along with disruptive change promote pie-in-the-sky thinking and dashed hopes. Indeed, such thinking has led to the rise of dictators, violence, and wars, but dreaming big has also resulted in the expansion of civil rights, victory over the Nazis, and the end of the Soviet Union. Incremental change leads to subtle ups and downs and a sense of controlled tranquility, while disruptive change results in greater perturbations with an accompanying sense of a loss of control.

Outstanding changemakers have a mix of contradictory characteristics: flexibility coupled with obstinacy; an internal sense of direction coupled with an outward focus; sharpening vs. resolving conflicts; and a comfort in, and a divine dissatisfaction with, the status quo. They seem to have an intuitive sense about how to create the right balance between stability, incremental change, and disruptive change. Most of the time, tweaking the system works well, but occasionally more disruption is in order.

So how do these times fit into the incremental-disruptive change spectrum? What is causing the anger that Senator Clinton mentioned in her post-election New Hampshire speech?

More and more of us feel battered by outside forces over which we have limited control. More and more of us are experiencing a breakdown in our communities, and believe an unholy alliance between government and big business bureaucracies is cutting us out of the decision-making loop. More and more of us mistrust the character and competence of those that run these bureaucracies, and these big shots seem to be loosing control of the bureaucracies they are trying to lead. Consider how the public hostility that Donald Trump expressed towards President George W. Bush and Senator Bernie Sanders’ more muted criticism of President Obama seem to be strengthening their candidacies at the expense of the parties to which they belong..

Why this fracturing? Because the main divide is between those who believe in the basic soundness of the status quo and those who believe some disruption is in order. And this divide cuts across party lines.

So it would seem that a period of disruptive change is upon us. Large segments of both conservatives and progressives strongly support eliminating corporate welfare, reforming the criminal justice system, opposing NAFTA-TYPE agreements, and, to a lesser extent, reducing regulations and giving more control to local governments. Despite the foot-dragging of party leaders, interparty conversations are already happening, and the candidate who can best encourage these conversations to bear fruit has the best chance of success. And perhaps this future president can encourage more cross-boundary conversations to find ways to best address the ISIS-RELATED threats.

Later in Senator Clinton’s New Hampshire speech, she said:

“And here’s what I promise: I will work harder than anyone to actually make the changes that make your lives better.”

If I were Senator Clinton, I would have said:

“And here’s what I promise: I will work smarter to support us in working together to make the changes we need to make our lives better.”

Who might have the best chance to help us make these changes? I’m not sure, but believe that Senator Cruz and Dr. Carson don’t have what it takes, and that Donald Trump thinks he has all the answers. As for the rest? Ask me in June. But I do believe that the candidate who harnesses our hidden nooks and crannies has the best chance to be a positively disruptive change agent.