**december **:
*Dangerosa, I would agree with you that most History profs are liberals. That makes is all the more striking that National Review does a more thorough job covering the international history than The Nation. *
According to whom? The so-called “liberal” who wrote the nonsenical and partisan BS to which you linked?
First, december, a not irrelevant fact: The Nation is a weekly publication devoted to current events. As such it neither is nor professes to be devoted to historical topics: though it does publish columns by eminent historians and reviews of important works of history. When Nation readers want to learn history they read about it in books (as Dangerosa has already suggested)–often the same books that the Nation covers in its superb book reviews which it publishes both weekly and in two special issues each year.
More important still, I challenge you to find any Nation feature article on a current event, foreign or domestic, that doesn’t make a bona fide effort consider the relevant historical context from which the subject derives.
I mean this seriously: I am throwing down the gauntlet. Search the Nation’s archives and read a few of the feature stories and come back to me when you have found an article that is deficient because it fails to take the historical context of a current event into account.
Note: I offer you this challenge in spite of the fact that I have never seen any post of yours that suggests to me that you yourself have even an average college graduate’s historical knowledge on any topic. To the contrary, you are quite possibly one of the most ahistorical (and, not uncoincidentally, one of the most ideologically blinkered) posters in Great Debates. That may sound unkind, but then again, one must take responsibility for the OPs one generates, no?
In the meantime, here’s a sample of what the Nation has been publishing for its readers while you’ve been reading ignorant drivel by risible faux- liberal bloggers:
Shedding Lincoln’s Mantle by Columbia historian and frequent Nation contributor Eric Foner. (Foner is a distinguished historian of, I think, nineteenth and twentieth century US hsitory).
History by the letter, by City College historian Louis Masur, an article that takes the occasion of the Starr report to discuss the relation between primary documents and the production of historical narratives.
A Bend in the Color, a review of a new history of racial anthropology, written by an NYU social historian which, among other things, offers an historical critique of books like The Bell Curve.
Those btw were just the first relevant hits to come up when I put the word “historian” in to the Nation’s search archive.
Foreign countries. Lessee now…
Why not check out Islam through Western Eyes, a short article by literature professor and cultural historian Edward Said?
The Terrorism Trap, by a foreign policy fellow, which discusses terrorist policy in light of cold war and post-cold war foreign policy history.
How We Ended the Cold War, a reflection on the cold war by a Fulbright scholar.
The Revolution Within, an extensive review of three books on recent Russian history.
The Ghosts of May, an account by a journalist of the demise of socialism in France with special emphasis on the post-1968 period.
Once again, all of this came up randomly in searches for “history” + various foreign countries (and this despite the fact that the Nation’s search engine is actually not very good).
Let’s say I give you three days december to look through the Nation’s feature articles–with special emphasis, if you wish, on the ones on foreign policy–so you can come up with one that is, by your lights, deficient in historical context.
I’ll check back from time to time to see what you come up with. 
