Democratic Socialists of America, Green Party, and Democratic Party Strategies
August 19, 2026
by William P. Meyers

Site Search

Popular pages:

Socialist Strategies Evaluated

The DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) are having a moment in the sun. The Green Party, on the other hand, has declined in significance, but its presidential candidate, Jill Stein, received 862 thousand votes in 2024. These two groups (the DSA does not call itself a party) have many similarities and yet some substantial differences. Looking at their trajectories gives some insight into what strategies and tactics might work moving forward in the United States in the future.

[Disclaimer: I have been aware of the DSA since it was formed; I have often considered becoming a member, but never did. I joined the Green Party around 2001 and for a time served on local, state, and national committees. Upon moving to Seattle in 2017 I switched to Democrat and remain active with the party.]

Although the USA has had many 3rd (and 4th, etc.) parties over its history, it has been an essentially two-party system since the end of the Civil War. This is not in the Constitution (which does not mention parties) but is mainly a result of our winner-take-all elections. That is why third parties often advocate for proportional representation, which is used in some European and other nations. Then, for instance, in California at one point of time the Green Party might have had about 5% of the seats in the state legislature, even though it could not win a majority in any specific legislative district.

A fair question to ask is, why have the Democratic Socialists and the Green Party never joined together? Surely united they are more likely to succeed, and disunited they would each fail separately.

If you need to ask this question, you have not been around the American left much. I'll use an example from the brief communist period of my life, in Seattle in the mid-1980s. I started surveying the radical groups to decide which one to join. There must have been at least 10 or 12 groups that were Trotskyist, followers of Leon Trotsky, who committed war crimes and crimes against humanity under Lenin. Why so many? Each would tell you it was a matter of having a correct "line", an interpretation of Trotsky's teachings (he died in 1940) applied to the current, local situation. But in every case it was a matter of egos. This year, when I checked, the number of Trotskyist groups in Seattle had declined to four.

Why was a Green Party formed in the United States, when they could have simply joined the DSA or some other existing 1960s leftover group? The Green Party began in Deutschland, and its success there was exciting. That German party was created in 1980 as an alliance of lefty groups, mostly socialist to communist spectrum, with a new urgency around the destruction of the environment. [I first met them in 1984, at protests against the installation of U.S. Pershing missiles.] In the 1980s some American lefty environmentalists thought this was a good idea, and growing over time, styled itself into a national party in 1990 (GPUSA). Almost immediately it split into two groups. Ralph Nader ran for President on the Green Party line in 1996 and 2000. Eventually the organizations merged back together to become the current Green Party of the United States. It currently has about 150 members elected to local offices like school boards, small town city councils, and utility district boards.

DSA followed in the ancient tradition of democratic socialism going back to the time of Karl Marx. It was officially founded in 1982, merging two democratic socialist groups that were shrinking in the post 1960s political environment. Note that many people who identify as democratic socialists (or socialist democrats) have not been members of the group, for instance Bernie Sanders. But US representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani are DSA members.

There may be some minor differences on political issues between the Green Party and DSA. These seem to be differences in prioritization and issues within issues. Go to any democratic leftist meeting and you can see people arguing over nuances, sometimes vehemently. One reason I left the Green Party was because ordinary Green members and voters (not so much leadership) seemed more interested in marijuana and what degree of vegetarian diet to promote than in stopping global warming or actually getting Greens elected to office. There is, of course, a filtering in each group, as people decide whether to join or not based on the existing platforms. Probably the main reason I never joined the DSA, despite agreement on several major issues, is that they are basically (in Seattle, at least) pro-criminal and anti-policing.

The main difference between the two groups has been strategic. Again, the DSA is not a political party. It is not a group within the Democratic Party, either; you can be a Democrat or not and still be a member of DSA. In fact you can be in both DSA and the Green Party.

For years now I have advocated that the Green Party should reconstitute itself as a faction within the Democratic Party. It would not be easy to swing the Dems, nationally, into line with Green positions. The centrist Democrats would resist, as they resist the DSA. But isn't that what we activists do, educate to create positive change?

We can worry that even together, within the Democratic Party, the DSA and Greens would get lost and become ineffective. But there is a substantial group of people who vote Democratic, and who are party activists, who are aligned on the issues with Democratic Socialism and prioritizing environmental protection. We can classify them as Progressive, which is a very broad label. Progressive could be just liberal, or it could be socialist. Its meaning varies by issue.

All told, my advice to the Green movement still is to become a faction within the Democrats. Maybe, like Democratic Socialists (DSA members or no), with some independent activities.

Despite the relative success of the Green Party in other nations, I do not see the U.S. changing over to a proportional representation, multi-party system. It might work on a state level, but not nationally. Also, consider the problems of proportional systems. Like the one that allowed the National Socialist Party to take over Deutschland in 1932. While complaining about the two-party system reformers tend to put on blinders to the problems of multi-party systems.

Its a complex world. And right now it is dying. If you don't want it to die, I have no problems with the tactics you choose to try to save it. It would be best for American voters to elect representatives who will shut down the petroleum industry (carefully, as fast as can be done without too much economic suffering), but if you have a working tactic to make heads roll, I can be pragmatic about that.

Seriously, Green Party and DSA and progressives, start working together. That is the best strategy.