[inquest]

one is left to wonder how we arrived at the conclusion that history is a better guide in political affairs than reason, if not through the application of reason itself.

One is also left to wonder what exactly your point is. Regardless of how that conclusion has been arrived at, it can be (and probably is) nonetheless a valid conclusion. If you can "reason" that there are limits to human reason, does that mean that reason is still king? Or does it mean that it's merely a useful stepping stone along the way?

Put another way, does it not mean that reason itself is an "inherently self-contradictory proposition"?

[general_re]

Regardless of how that conclusion has been arrived at, it can be (and probably is) nonetheless a valid conclusion.

How do you know it's a valid conclusion? Applying reason? Watch out for that Jacobinism bugbear.

If you can "reason" that there are limits to human reason, does that mean that reason is still king? Or does it mean that it's merely a useful stepping stone along the way?

It means you probably shouldn't make universal pronouncements about the inapplicability of rationalism to the political sphere... ;)