Globalization has transformed our planet, again and again. It touches every part of our lives: the food we eat, the entertainment we enjoy, the ways we communicate, the products we buy. For many of us, it shapes the way we earn a living in an increasingly connected and interdependent world.

The constant flow of people, goods, information, and ideas across national borders —even from one side of the globe to another — is a basic fact of modern life. Globalization makes our lives richer, but it also raises challenges for governments and policymakers.

We tend to think of globalization first as an economic phenomenon tied to world trade, the exchange of goods and services. There’s also cultural globalization: Music, art, films, and TV span the globe. With the internet and satellite communications, information crosses borders instantaneously.

The globalization of trade has been generally positive. It improves efficiency and expands markets, giving consumers more choices and businesses more opportunity. It has raised the standard of living for many poor countries. But the globalized economy unquestionably creates winners and losers. In the United States, manufacturing jobs have been displaced in recent years, while skilled workers have made gains.

Some aspects of globalization are negative. Terrorists strike targets around the world. Criminals transport weapons and drugs from one country to another. Cyber criminals target businesses and organizations wherever they are vulnerable. And viruses spread worldwide [as we’ve seen with COVID-19].

Nuclear proliferation is probably the most threatening manifestation of globalization. Despite efforts to curb it, nine countries now possess nuclear weapons, including Pakistan and North Korea. The U.S. and its allies worry that Iran could join the nuclear club. The possibility that these devastating weapons could be used, intentionally or by accident, is terrifying, even if we rarely discuss it.

Perhaps surprisingly, the term globalization didn’t come into general usage until the 1980s, but the phenomenon goes back centuries, often driven by breakthroughs in technology. Some scholars trace the rise of globalization to the so-called Age of Discovery, when advances in ship design enabled European adventurers to circle the globe and explore the Americas. In the 1800s, railroads, steamships, and factories facilitated trade, and the telegraph connected distant regions.

With globalization came global conflict. After World War II, the United States took the lead in building a world order to promote peace and prosperity. Nations joined together to resolve disputes under the banner of free trade and the rule of law. The institutions we helped create — the United Nations, NATO, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund — are hallmarks of globalization.

Globalization seemed to gain favor in the 1990s and early 2000s, when Congress approved the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the tech boom supercharged the economy. There was bipartisan sentiment that global trade and other aspects of globalization were beneficial. Thomas Friedman’s bestseller “The World Is Flat” celebrated the leveling of the economic playing field and the growing worldwide influence of technology and entrepreneurship.

Attitudes toward globalization can fluctuate, however. President Donald Trump proclaimed, “America first,” feuded with allies, rejected trade deals, and imposed tariffs. But Joe Biden, on his first international trip as president, met with G-7 leaders and declared “the United States is back” as a global partner.

In the long run, the forces that draw the world together may be stronger than the ones that drive us apart. The COVID-19 pandemic showed that a virus that starts in one country will quickly spread to others, and it will take international cooperation to stop it. Threats like climate change, nuclear proliferation, and the plight of refugees cannot be solved by nations acting alone. Globalization will continue to advance, and the challenge is to adapt and make it work better for everyone.                        

Lee Hamilton, 90, is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years (1965-1999), representing a district in south central Indiana.

The announcement [on June 23] that the declared state of emergency for New York State would not be extended was welcome news for all New Yorkers.

Weeks ago, the Assembly Republican Conference called for an end to Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s executive order. Unfortunately, when Democrats in Albany had an opportunity and responsibility to return checks and balances back to state government and return control and authority back to local municipalities and school districts, they didn’t act.

 For more than 15 months, 19.5 million people have been operating under executive orders, arbitrary restrictions, and emergency declarations. [One June 24], it finally ended. New Yorkers can now, at long last, return to their daily routines and a sense of normalcy. It is time to move forward.            

William (Will) A. Barclay, Republican, is the New York Assembly minority leader and represents the 120th New York Assembly District, which encompasses most of Oswego County, including the cities of Oswego and Fulton, as well as the town of Lysander in Onondaga County and town of Ellisburg in Jefferson County. Contact Barclay at barclaw@assembly.state.ny.us. This article is drawn from a statement that Barclay issued on June 23.

President Joe Biden has announced a bipartisan $1 trillion infrastructure spending bill via budget reconciliation but has not told the American people how they can afford it under current deficit-neutral rules. Given the massive growth in government spending due to emergency COVID spending, the only approach is to revive bipartisan-sequestration rules from 2011 that prohibit the increase in discretionary spending for a minimum of three years, rather than raising taxes.

If infrastructure is a priority for government spending, then it’s only logical that funds be shifted from other areas, including unspent COVID funds, to meet this priority. It would be a massive mistake to burden our recovering economy will killer tax increases. Flatlining government spending is the only acceptable approach to paying for any infrastructure plan.                          

Rick Manning is president of Americans for Limited Government (ALG). The organization says it is a “non-partisan, nationwide network committed to advancing free-market reforms, private property rights, and core American liberties.” This op-ed is drawn from a news release the ALG issued on June 24.