I agree. World War II pretty much put an end to Washington style isolationism as something to be taken seriously. And, prior to World War II it was taken very seriously. I once came across a book in stack at the university library, title and author now long forgotten, written by a retired Army officer advocating we build a figuratively high wall between us and the outside world.
A more interesting debate, about which I've recently done a lot of reading, would be a debate between Madison and Hamilton: How to interpret the Constitution. That might have a bit more relevancy.
yeah. World War II put an end to a lot of things. Had Washington been around to compare the type of destruction in his time to the amount in World War I or II, he would be astonished....and changed somewhat I would guess....
However, you join with the Wilsonians in mislabeling it.
Washington nor Jefferson ever advocated isolationism. Go back and read again Washington's paragraph L in the debate. "Liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity and interest." That is hardly isolationistic. The debate is not between isolationism and non-isolationism; it is between maximizing our independence of action and allowing other interests to marginalize it. That is a very different thing.
Under the Washington/Jefferson foreign policy, America is free to pursue her interests and her people's interest in every corner of the earth. That is not the issue in this debate.