On the Left/liberal end of the spectrum, we have Wilsonian interventionists (in today's world, the Clintonites) as well as pacifists. On the right/conservative end of the spectrum, there have always been "isolationists" (i.e. Republicans who opposed Wilson and getting involved in WWI, the America First committee, and today, libertarian and paleoconservative "isolationists" like Paul and Buchanan) as well as interventionists hawks (neoconservatives like Bolton, etc).
Actually, Reagan's foreign policy was somewhere in between the neoconservative interventionist and the paleoconservative "isolationist" view of things. He, along with Eagleburger, Weinberger, etc. are foreign policy realists - they're not interested in nation-building or "spreading Democracy" (a view they share with libertarians and paleoconservatives), but they're more willing to resort to force over diplomacy to protect our strategic interests. Case in point: Reagan did bomb Libya, but he also withdrew US troops from Lebanon after Marine barracks were bombed there, because he felt that it wasn't our war.
Bottom line is that both neoconservatives and libertarians/paleoconservatives claim Reagan as their own, and they're both equally wrong (or right?).
I ask you simply, would Ronald Reagan be making excuses for Vladimir Putin?