What, like Sweden? :rolleyes:
What, like Sweden? :rolleyes:
Hell frozen over. 
Well, Sweden represents a compromise between a left-leaning population and a center-leaning Green Party that have enough in common that the Greens could win some seats.
And I mean some, because the Greens only hold 19 out of 349 seats in the Swedish Riksdag (i.e. Parliament) making them the smallest of the 7 parties represented. Had I to guess, I’d say the most palatable planks of the Greens’ platform have been grabbed and successfully co-opted by the other leftist parties. Sweden is green-ish, but not Green.
In any case, should the American Green party somehow win power without this necessary convergence and overlap, I predict chaos, much as would follow any political change that lacked widespread support from the population. Not quite a Godwin because there is relevance instead of hyperbole, but the NAZI Party could take power in Germany in the 30s even without majority support because they had no problem using physical intimidation on political opponents. Unless the Greens anticipate a similar approach, their stay in the White House and the Congress will be a very short one.
I’m trying to envision the Sturmabteilung uniform made over in hemp and tie-dye . . .
A Green America?
The Captain would look like THIS.
Why do you ask? 
The problem is that setting those “stringent standards of minimal environmental impact” as high as the Greens (freed from the need to consider the opinions of any other faction as per the OP) would set them would be hopelessly hostile to any sort of meaningful innovation in practice.
Not every meaningful innovation in technology has a significant added environmental impact. The impact of computers is limited to the leftover solvents, etc., from the hardware factories, and making the computers a little faster and better every few years does not add to that. The Greens are not really Luddites, as they are often called; they just want to “do more with less,” in techno-industrial terms.
It did work, for a few decades. We refer to it as the Roman Republican Period.
Nitpick: In the Roman Republic (which lasted more than a few decades) citizenship was a hereditary right; you didn’t have to serve in the legions to earn it, if your father was a citizen. Citizenship could also be earned by military service or alliance with Rome – but in those cases it was extended wholesale to all people of the allied city, and then became hereditary with them.
Nava, I meant it would not work in America in the near future. It might work fine in anther 100 years of eroding rights.
Legionaries were always citizens first, it was illegal to serve in the legions if you weren’t a full citizen. Non-citizens had to enlist in the auxiliaries.
Republican period auxiliary soldiers were usually provided by treaty with various tribes and nations…in exchange for peace and trade, the Samnite Tribe will provide five thousand archers upon written request by the S.P.Q.R., and etc. But in Republican times, when the fight was over they’d just go home and do whatever they did before. It wasn’t until the Imperial period that auxiliaries became standardized with a 25-year fulltime service period, and citizenship was granted at the end of it.
The best way to get citizenship during the Republic was to either:
a) Buy it from a provincial governor who needed the money, or
b) Sell yourself as a slave to a Roman and buy your freedom after ten or twenty years. Citizenship would be automatic upon becoming free.
Most people went with the second one.