If you do the statistical analysis correctly, birdie, a sample size of about 3 is enough to base conclusions on. 38 is low, and the resulting conclusions shouldn't be taken as concrete, but if the sample is chosen well and you don't screw up the stats then it is enough. I'm surprised that you're not aware of this point, as it's typical of statistical methods that small sample sizes are enough if chosen well.
Pseudoscience? I don't understand why you think that so readily -- it should be pretty obvious that the brain is the centre for various patterns of thought and decision-making. It's also largely accepted by now that various parts of the brain have particular primary roles, so I don't see why it's pseudoscientific that one might have a particular role in ideology.
I'm afraid you've reached a prejudiced decision based on a) not even reading the paper you are rubbishing, and b) a poor representation of the research by the Telegraph. I'm not saying the paper is correct, but I think it is offering up an interesting line of research, at least as interesting as most other psychological work.