Agree, and yet even here on FR, tiny wars of words conducted in a sentence or two without actual "defining" is quite normal.
I think our "national interest" is the health, safety, prosperity and liberty as it can reign within our borders, without debt and in measured pace. Stick to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and we can be safe and sage enough. There are resources aplenty here, should we aim for being a autarkic as possible, and from that base we can deal honestly with the rest of the world.
But then, that is not and never will be in the interest of the lobbyists, looking from their riches from government, and it is they who exert the "donor" pressure on what is currently a very well "purchased" government.
This suggests that the time will come when a revisit to the opening of the Declaration of Independence will become crucial.
You argue that the Constitution prevents us from entering into trade or alliances with other nations.
I see that Article 1 Section 10 clearly prevents states from entering into treaties, alliances, etc. On the other hand, I don’t see where this power was denied to the federal government. Instead, I see that Article 2 Section 2 gives the power to make treaties to the President with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate.
Even before the Constitution, treaties were joined into by the U.S. for trade and commerce, and not merely for settling wars and border disputes. So, it was well-known by the Founder Fathers what was involved in treaty-making powers. They decided to prohibit this power to the states, and reserve it to the President with the consent of two-thirds of the Senate.
You are, of course, perfectly free to claim anything that you want, but you shouldn’t misrepresent the Constitution. Maybe you should say the Constitution SHOULD HAVE forbid treaty-making power to the federal government as well as as to the states, perhaps with a provision for settling wars and border disputes.
Nobody had ICBMs back in 1789. The great oceans of the world were a significant barrier, provided of course the bad guys were kept out of this hemisphere as provided by the Monroe Doctrine. I myself imagine I would have been a semi-isolationist (this hemisphere only) through the bombing of Pearl Harbor.