i would say some capitalist enterprises might be less destructive (to the environment, various social structures, etc) than others, but to me they are no less capitalist. unions are a great example.
also, i think it is apparent that democrats are every bit as destructive and militaristic as republicans - they simply have done a much better job at finessing and masking their horrors when it comes to what is easily available to the public. and of course there are waves and fluctuations, depending on one's perspective. take a look at fdr's actual record (beyond the new deal, which clearly helped many), much less kennedy or clinton.
if you think the clintons are any less worshipful of capitalism than bush or trump, i would disagree strongly. again, their public approach is far less controversial and confrontational. and i don't find them as personally repugnant (tho hillary does come close at times).
i absolutely agree that from any given perspective, some politicians (not just those in government) can be more or less detrimental to ones objectives than others. i just disagree that capitalism can be "fixed" by implementing "green" (or "protectionist", or any other) measures. and to rephrase what has been said already far too often, implementing the kinds of tweaks and reforms that are the only changes that ever occur from any position on the political spectrum, only serves to release the pressure for whatever group(s) benefit from those tweaks, thereby angering (and increasing the pressure on/from) other group(s), and - most importantly - strengthening and perpetuating the overall system. i think history proves that quite clearly, especially regarding capitalism. that motherfucker is one adaptable, resilient institution. as much so as government.