Currently there are 'left leaning' governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil and Nicaragua that I know of- all democratically elected.

The US may disagree with their policies, but if we draw a comparison to US or US sponsored activities in the region during the Reagan administration, US foreign policy is certainly less thuggish than it was back then- almost benign in comparison. Central American states in particular were treated as Vassals, and any move to the 'Left' was brutally squashed. El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala are particularly grim examples. That said, the US is credibly accused of backing a coup attempt against Chavez, and of some meddling in the current Bolivian civil strife. The US backed the landed Elites, against the peasant based popular movements- certainly the spreading of 'freedom and democracy' did not apply to central or south America during the Reagan days.

It is interesting to speculate why this apparent softening of stance has happened towards nations that, in the US view, come under the 'Monroe Doctrine'. Is it-
  • Geostrategy. The Cold War is over (sort of), Central and Sth America are no longer seen as Domino's about to fall to the Russian sphere- the new Geostrategy is energy dominance, and Middle East focused.
  • A more benign, perhaps enlightened view towards foreign policy in the region. A greater appreciation for human and democratic rights in it's own back yard.
  • Priority. The US has it's hands full with Iraq, Ghan and the ME in general. The US can sit back and wait, as there is no immediate threat posed- and see how things pan out.
  • Blowback- In retrospect, none of the popular resistance movements or 'left leaning' governments that were quashed during the Reagan years were actually quashed at all- they were just ruthlessly suppressed, and driven back underground. But they were still simmering- for example, the Nicaraguan government is Sandinista, again. No mature appreciation of the current politics of the region can fail to see the Blowback as being an important factor in the current choice of governments. The practical lesson being that the old Reaganite foreign policy was short sighted (and Thuggish)- ultimately, it could only delay matters.
Obviously, none of the factors above is exclusive- the reality is a combination of all of them most likely. But, if you have any knowledge of recent history, you will be aware that the reaction of the Reaganites would have been a whole lot more proactive, and violent, than is the case now.