Republicans seek office while Democrats seek power. That explains our politics in a nutshell. It also explains why nothing ever changes — at least not for the better.

The four years of Biden’s presidency were among the most miserable in recent American history in terms of culture, affordability, freedom, and America’s standing in the world. But any critically thinking person should ask: Why didn’t we enjoy the residual effects of Trump’s first term?

Republicans warn voters that Democrats will wield power aggressively if they win, while demonstrating that Republicans themselves are reluctant to wield it while they have it.

On the surface, that observation sounds sophomoric. Of course Biden countermanded policies from Trump’s first term. That was to be expected. But dig deeper and you realize that nearly every auspicious conservative policy was implemented through executive action rather than codified into law. It could therefore be reversed by a succeeding administration or challenged in court.

That is why every ounce of Trump’s political capital should have been focused on codifying his core campaign promises into must-pass legislation so we would not repeat the same history when the pendulum eventually swings back toward Democrats.

Instead, Republicans have blown through nearly the entirety of what is likely Trump’s second and final governing trifecta with almost none of their core immigration or economic promises codified into permanent law. Now they are canceling most of the remaining legislative days before the election under the guise of giving members more time to campaign for another term in a majority they are struggling to defend.

They are also staging a first-of-its-kind midterm convention to scare Republican voters about Democrats — all while ignoring, and in some cases relinquishing, the power they currently possess.

What is the point of campaigning to retain power while you hold it but refuse to use it? What changes after the election even if Republicans retain the House? And why, with the party facing serious political headwinds, would Trump and congressional Republicans not use every remaining legislative day to focus on popular issues that could inject some momentum into an otherwise listless campaign?

Last week, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) announced that the House would return for only a one-week session in mid-September and then adjourn until after the election. That leaves House lawmakers just four more legislative days before November 3.

I suppose one could argue that given how bad they have been, it is better to keep them out of Washington.

But if that is our attitude, why should anyone vote to send them back?

RELATED: Washington must not forget the grassroots

Leon Neal/Getty Images

It didn’t have to be this way. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling on birthright citizenship, Republicans could have used the budget, the National Defense Authorization Act, or reconciliation to try to prohibit federal funding for citizenship documents issued under circumstances they oppose. They could have pursued legislation changing how noncitizens are treated in congressional apportionment. They could have attempted to defund sanctuary jurisdictions or restrict programs that allow foreign workers to compete with Americans for jobs.

In other words, they could at least have attempted to use their final legislative days before the election to fulfill their mandate. That itself would have been a stronger campaign message than the languid narrative they currently offer.

After all, what is the point of clearing the schedule for extra campaign days if you have nothing positive to campaign on?

Instead, Republicans returned last week and quickly passed a continuing resolution funding the government through December 11 with virtually none of the immigration or economic reforms conservatives spent the past two years demanding. The House passed it 370-48.

“Well, they don’t want to rock the boat close to the election, so they opted for a clean CR,” you might retort.

Except it was not really clean in the sense conservatives usually mean when they use that term.

The bill contained at least two significant policy provisions. One delays new restrictions on intoxicating hemp-derived THC products that Congress enacted last year. The restrictions were scheduled to take effect November 12 and would have barred many products containing more than 0.4 milligrams of THC or other intoxicating cannabinoids per container. The CR now pushes that deadline to December 11.

The hemp industry lobbied heavily for that reprieve, and the White House supported the delay. Republicans who objected argued that Congress was postponing restrictions aimed at increasingly potent and easily accessible products.

Unfortunately, Trump is well-connected to the hemp and marijuana industries, so naturally he is willing to fight for them more than any of his immigration or economic promises.

RELATED: Dallas is the GOP’s last chance to remember why Trump won

JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

The continuing resolution also temporarily blocks the Office of Management and Budget from finalizing a proposed rule that would significantly change federal grant-making by giving political appointees greater authority over grants and allowing agencies broader power to modify or cancel awards.

That reform cuts to the heart of one of the central complaints conservatives have made about the administrative state: Federal grant-making often finances organizations, universities, nonprofits, and programs that advance ideological priorities long after the voters who elected the current administration have changed course.

Yet Republicans allowed the stopgap bill to block one of the administration’s more consequential attempts to bring that grant-making under direct political control.

Why?

This is the recurring problem. Republicans routinely decline to codify their own executive actions, then permit temporary spending deals to constrain the executive authority they actually possess.

Meanwhile, they campaign for more power.

The larger record is difficult to ignore. Republicans have controlled the House for 24 of the past 32 years. Yet many of the policy victories conservatives celebrate remain vulnerable to the next president, the next court case, or the next appropriations fight because Congress never secured them in statute.

Holding office becomes the achievement.

The irony is almost perfect. Republicans warn voters that Democrats will wield power aggressively if they win, while demonstrating that Republicans themselves are reluctant to wield it while they have it.

Then they leave Washington to campaign for another chance.