OK amendment: I'm not against a national (federal) gov't agency, like an FAA or EPA. So have to disagree on that.
To your question: the old joke used to be, Dems want a small army and want to send it everywhere, the GOP wants a huge army and never wants it to leave home.
Obviously that's been detonated in recent years as Rummy decided he wanted to send a (too) small army to places like Iraq. And Afghanistan. And Iran. Although that whole PNAC kind of insanity came not so much from wanting to be "interventionist," but "pre-emptive." Whatever that means. 1% doctrine I guess.
I remember the GOP screaming when Clinton took a decidedly interventionist action in Bosnia, which I didn't oppose on humanitarian grounds. Plus, Clinton actually listened to his generals and we didn't lose one person there.
So I guess traditionally the "liberals" want to be the world's humanitarian cop and the GOP wants nothing to do with it. Now that's hardly the case, as the entire GOP campaign of late has been thundering about finally "doing something" about Iran (with Israel's egging on, of course) whereas you'd be hard-pressed to find a "liberal" who wants to go anywhere militarily right now.
I'd guess most liberals would say we need to nation-build at home before embarking on such ventures in middle eastern countries.
So yes, the line is smudged/blurred/obliterated at this point.