There may be some areas of government that see relatively few differences, especially in the machinery of the bureaucracy. But in other areas the article's thesis couldn't be more wrong.
Taxes, guns, COVID lockdowns, abortion, and many other issues have laws directly attributable to what party is in power.
Sure, they are constrained by the art of the possible: massive top-rate rises and cuts are extremely appealing to left/right bases respectively but are constrained by the fact that (i) the median voter they need to woo doesn't like extreme change and (ii) extreme changes usually won't actually have the positive impact on the economy which left/right ideology claims they will. So tax changes usually aren't drastic, and don't show up well in panel data studies. But there's still plenty of changes at the margin and especially to tax incidence which are the result of one party being elected over another.
But for the other items on the list. It all depends on what you, and we as people, would consider to be important changes. For example major global events like a war in the middle east was started by the left in the UK, and the right in the US, it could have been swapped around and indeed was swapped around a few times but the policies, the war and damage continued.
Are the changes tribal politics or real politics, is what the article is asking. The author is attacking tribal politics and by extension those invested in cultural war type issues.