Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
This would include eliminating MFN status as all nations would be equal. Interaction as is necessary with government oversight on trade.
Use the example of Saudi Arabia. It seems to me that this has been precisely our relationship with Saudi Arabia: a "friend", yet we do not "interfere" in their internal affairs.
So those military bases on Saudi soil don't exist? How about we allow Russia to be a fully run, controlled, and with no oversight Russian base in the middle of, say Mississippi. No interference from them and little to no interaction with the Russians. How do you think the citizens of that state, let alone citizens of other states within the union, see that? After all, they wouldn't be interfering....
[Use the example of Saudi Arabia. It seems to me that this has been precisely our relationship with Saudi Arabia: a "friend", yet we do not "interfere" in their internal affairs.] So those military bases on Saudi soil don't exist?
Well, not anymore, right? :-)
Yes, yes, I know what you meant, but note that we stationed military on their soil at their (the ruling regime's) request, to help defend them from an enemy neighbor. And first of all, it's not clear to me how stationing military on cloistered bases is "interfering in their internal affairs". As I said, we largely left their internal affairs alone. (Maybe you mean something else by that, something non-obvious)
If you think our government should not have chosen to help defend that regime, on what basis? You're the one arguing on the side which wants us to be impartial among nation-states and not interfere/meddle/judge their internal affairs. Saudi Arabia was the enemy of an enemy and a business partner of several of our citizens, why on earth would we have turned down a request to help defend them? Wouldn't that require judging their internal affairs rather than being dispassionate?
As for this:
But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences...
It seems to me that our military presence in Saudi Arabia was not part of a "commercial policy" per se, but a national security one. More accurately still, it was a combination. Because part of what I'm saying is that you can't so easily separate trade from politics in the first place.
How about we allow Russia to be a fully run, controlled, and with no oversight Russian base in the middle of, say Mississippi. No interference from them and little to no interaction with the Russians. How do you think the citizens of that state, let alone citizens of other states within the union, see that? After all, they wouldn't be interfering....
I would not like it, most people would not like it, and therefore it's doubtful our democratically-elected government would (openly and/or knowingly :) make the decision to invite those Russians. However, Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, it is a dynastic monarchy. That's the way it is. That's how that nation-state manages its "internal affairs" (and remember, you're the one who doesn't want us "interfering" in a nation-states "internal affairs", not me!)
Well, that government did decide to invite our military to station there. What's the problem?
Are you going to say, The problem is that Saudia Arabia's government a nondemocratic tyranny and so we shouldn't have helped it like that, and we should have also understood that its lack of legitimacy would cause us problems if we did? If so: Congratulations, you're a neocon! ;-)