Political movements usually have a pedigree, so is there some interesting history behind Trumpism? I think so. And it goes back to none other than Bill Clinton – husband of Hillary – who, ironically, can be said to have laid the political foundation for Donald Trump.In 1992, Clinton was a left-leaning Democrat who wanted to reduce poverty, promote education, and expand health care. Unfortunately, Americans concluded that his White House was unfocused and undisciplined. When he lost control of the Senate and Congress in the '94 mid-terms, pundits wrote him off as a one-term president.In desperation – and in secret – Bill reached out to a long-time friend, Arkansas pollster Dick Morris, for advice. “Can I still win a second term?” he wondered. Morris did some quick polling, then came back with good news and bad news.Yes, Clinton could win, but only by abandoning his progressive policies, tacking hard to the Right, and putting his future in Morris's hands. From now on, Morris's polling would dictate the President's policies.Now, politicians have always been torn between the desire to win and doing what they believe is right. Even Abraham Lincoln wasn't above stacking a meeting. But this was different. Morris offered Clinton a choice between two very different ways of governing: give people whatever they want or give them what you believe they need.Morris then threw in the deal sweetener. By using telephone surveys, he could learn more about Americans' wants in 48 hours – and far more reliably – than Clinton and his staff could learn in a month of consulting with party officials. Morris proposed a simple but ingenious plan: he would find out what swing voters wanted, Clinton would give it to them, and they would lure enough voters Clinton's way to win. Clinton agreed.It was a defining moment in modern politics. It not only signaled a change in how policy would be made in the decades ahead, but in how power would be exercised in the leader's office. Effectively, two people now ran the White House – the president and his pollster – and they decided policy by polling numbers, rather than people's needs.Clinton went on to win his second term with a large majority. As for his policy “achievements,” they include: welfare reform, which made people work for their welfare cheques; the three-strikes provision, which left American jails overflowing; and deregulation of the banks, which led to the economic crisis of 2008. You be the judge.The Clinton/Morris duo created a wave of change that circled the globe. Democracies everywhere were invaded by a new breed of consultants whose value lay solely in their skill at winning. Those who were slow to embrace the new normal paid the price at the ballot box.This new politics also spawned a new “ethos of winning.” Once winning has been defined as the primary goal, it was a short step to the conclusion that whatever gets you there is fair game. That principle has been working its way into American politics for a quarter century and Trump represents the logical endpoint.To see why, first, we need a key distinction. In a democracy, reasonable people can disagree on policy options, but they must agree on the rules for how decisions will be made between the options. These “ground rules” define how the political institutions work and what they can do.While Clinton was willing to trade in his policies to win at the ballot box, he didn't meddle with the ground rules, presumably because he knew they were essential to democracy. By contrast, Trump extends this ethos of winning to both levels.After all, if the goal is to win, why limit it to elections when you can also win control over the institutions? Thus, much as Clinton traded his policies for success at the ballot box, Trump has traded democracy for a shot at more control over the institutions. Watch him.He wades unapologetically into the space around the ground rules, then talks about taking government back from the elites – “draining the swamp.” His MO is consistent: engage in brazen violation of the ground rules, then wait for the institution to respond.For example: he refuses to place his businesses in a blind trust; he demands pledges of personal loyalty from public officials; he publicly attacks the intelligence community because he doesn't like what the research says; he interferes with congressional committees to ensure a favourable report; he uses pardons to send a signal that those loyal to him need not fear the law.These are all acts of provocation designed to get his way or goad the institution into a fight that he thinks he can win. It is classic authoritarian populism. If it is not checked, his ability to defy the ground rules will increase and the state's ability to call him to account will diminish.But will he be checked?Many people believe that America's political institutions are resillient enough to withstand these assaults and that they will prevail, as they did with Watergate. Special Counsel Robert Mueller may be the best hope here, but no one knows how that will end.I think there is a wild card: we know that the ethos of winning has already changed these institutions, but we don't really know how much. It is possible that they are now simply too partisan to deal with issues like this objectively, fairly, and effectively.If so, the result could be a political stand-off between Democrats and Republicans. And in that case, I think Trump wins simply because he doesn't lose, and he gets to go on doing what he is doing.Thanks, Bill.Dr. Don Lenihan is an internationally recognized expert on public engagement and Open Government. He is currently advising The Ottawa Hospital on an engagement plan to develop its new Civic Campus – a $2 billion, 10-year project. He also co-chairs the Open Government Partnership's Practice Group on Open Dialogue and Deliberation. Don can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihan