No.
Washington's advice for our country to remain neutral tips the scale towards what we know as the policy of isolationism. He believed that the United States should at least at first ensure that it itself can stand on it's own feet (especially in his time), and to be able to look after themselves.
The first part of the problem, is the change in the nature of the world. In Washington's day and age, the United States had finally been birthed into the world, and was winged from being under the mothership of Great Britain, following the Declaration of Independence and the windfall victory over Great Britain in the Siege of Yorktown. However, the United State's currency was fledgling within it's day, and without a proper military or wealth back-up, held no worth in it's day. Combined with large amounts of counterfeit currency that was produced for each individual state currency (with no strong backing, as well as no FED), the US did not have the money to structure itself, pay it's debts and troops, and was close to failing. The need for peace and prosperity during this time was essential for the survivability of the country, and would not be seen well in certain sectors of the United States today.
The second part of the problem, is the willingness of Washington to remove the US from being attached to alliances. After all, the war was over, and so the familiarity with France, Spain, and other allies were distanced, especially with the events that followed, including the French Revolution, and the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte soon after. (However, you can note that in the Great American Expansion, the United States did in fact negotiate the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon Bonaparte, in exchange for cash that then funded the creation of the Le Grand Armee, and the campaigns of Napoleon. In this case, however, after the current expansions following the Louisiana Purchase, we can already see that the United States wouldn't even be what it would be if it had stayed neutral and had no wars. The United States would not have gained Florida if it did not have war with Spain in the Spanish-American war, and would not have gained a large part of south-western America if it did not have war with Mexico following the Texas Independence and the Mexican-American War. In fact, to close out the current border with the Gadsen Purchase, the Purchase itself would not have been possible without the complete rout of the Mexican Army following the expedition to Mexico City. The creation of Alliances and the expansion westward for more territory already shown that neutrality was not plausible. A good idea that was put in place during this time that is worth looking into is the Manifest Destiny.
The third part of the problem is Global Expansion Ideology, which actually started as more of a regional field. The Monroe Doctrine was pursued by the United States in the turn of the 19th century, which essentially stated that the US would actively find itself fighting against further European expansions into the Americas, and that it would act as a safeguard to allow these countries to "have their liberties and freedoms". This was actively needed to protect the US national interests, whether it is a peacefully-incentivized interest, or one that had to do with politics. In this case, however, for the country to remain neutral, it may have to forgo it's policy of expansionism, which saw to the US obtaining Hawaii (our 50th state and a very important one to military infrastructures), as well as territories such as the US virgin islands, Puerto Rico, etc.