It’s All in the Brain

Using the Findings of Neuroscience to Assess Political Behavior

Sherwin A. Steffin
May 12, 2009
A Personal Note from the Author
There is an old saying, the original author of which, I must confess I have been
unable to locate or identify. However elusive he or she may remain, the power if
this statement is shown by its ubiquitous appearance. A Google Search reveals
151,000 pages where this short statement appears.
“Observations are gold; hypotheses, silver; and conclusions,
bronze.”
This paper introduces some controversial concepts. Much of what I conclude
about political behavior will be offensive to some, controversial for others, and
hopefully thought provoking for most. While trained as a statistician, I have no
formal training or experience in neuroscience.
I have attempted, wherever possible, to provide links to any statement which I
assert to have a basis in fact. I trust that most will agree that the “sandwich
wrappings” around the facts are reasonably drawn inferences, and testable
hypotheses. That being said, there are statements I make which are pure,
unadulterated speculation – my “bronze” conclusions.
To make certain you know the difference, I have set these conclusions
apart, using a blue background. For what it is worth to you, be aware that
these are my personal, unsupported hunches, so make whatever use of
them you see fit.

Part I -- Defining the Problem

Introduction
The impetus for this article began in November, 2004, when George Bush
secured reelection, and a conservative Congress retained its legislative control.
All of this in the face of a war which, in every way, had failed to follow the course
the Administration had so confidently predicted. All of this in the face of growing
evidence that the WMD rationale for this expensive war, was either the product of
incompetent intelligence gathering at best, and outright, deliberate lying, at worst.
There were ample data available to differentiate between Bush and Kerry
supporters, with some more salient results from an analysis by this author,
provided here. Yet, the Democratic party, in nominating Kerry, proved itself, at
that time, unable to field candidates with sufficient credibility to wrest either the
presidency or control of Congress from conservatives.
Within government, there is a cluster of jobs in which the participants are at
physical risk, as found in law enforcement, counterespionage, and special
military operators. For these individuals, risk taking, resistance to pain and
tolerance for prolonged physical discomfort are essential attributes necessary for
survival, if not success, in achieving their missions. Yet, finding candidates to fill
such positions, proves to be an almost impossible task. They demand rock-
steady psychological stability coupled with extraordinary physical skills. Finding
suitable candidates for military elite forces such as the Navy Seals, or Delta
Force, is proving extremely difficult. Equally problematic is the task of maintaining
the general military force, sufficient in size and quality to meet the warfighting
needs of the nation
Whether seeking candidates for the military or service in elective office, the
problem remains the same. Candidates are expected to have the extraordinary
skills necessary to meet the requirements of the positions they seek; at the same
time, we expect (more realistically, hope) that office holders will display behavior
and attitudes exemplified by the West Point motto – “Duty, Honor, Country.”
Thus, our country faces a crisis which has become more evident over the last
forty years, the specifics of which are known to all, but the generality of which
has been little addressed. We have seen a nation paralyzed by corruption,
incompetence, and polarized politicization of issues. In theory, there exist
mechanisms for “checks and balances,” to control government run amok, but we
have sadly seen how distant the fantasies offered up in public school text books
are from the realities of government practice.
In 2006, with the war raging unabated, growing military casualties, a trillion
dollars spent in prosecuting the Iraq war, Democrats were able to regain
substantial control of the House, and obtaina razor thin margin in the Senate.
While a preponderance of Americans seek an end to the war, control of illegal
immigration, ending the tenure of a politicized, incompetent Attorney General,
and reversing illegal privacy violations by the FBI, the new Congress appears
unwilling or incapable of resolving these, among many other issues.
While the presence of corruption and incompetence give the appearance of an
increase in frequency and magnitude, it is the author’s contention that they have
always been present, but with the introduction of the new media, and the
proliferation of multiple information channels, it is public awareness which has
grown exponentially.
Questions
In considering the problems described above, several questions are immediately
evident:
Are there physical, economic, social, or neurological characteristics which
reliably differentiate between those who label themselves as “Liberal,” vs. the
“Conservative?”
Does affiliation with political party occur first, with adoption of philosophy
following, or is the reverse the case?
Are there physical or psychological characteristics of individuals which increase
the probability of selection and incumbency of elected politicians, apart from
political affiliation, or stance on specific issues? (A prime example of this
possibility was the reelection of Senator Joseph Lieberman, after being
abandoned by the Democratic Party as a result of his position on the war.)
Are criminality, corruption, and incompetence conditions which will universally be
present in government operations or are there mechanisms available which could
modify the behavior of elected officials?
There are numerous explanations for these and similar questions. The
perspective of this paper is one of using the experimental findings of
neuroscience. While there was a great deal of foundational work in
understanding the anatomy and physiology of the human nervous system, a
revolutionary tool became available in the 1990s which made it possible to
reliably provide experimental verifications of the activity in the human brain as
well as methods to assess these measurements.
The “Lit Up” Brain
With the development of functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI),
neuroscientists acquired the ability to directly measure and thereby verify their
theories of the electrochemical processes involved in human behavior.
The MRI Device, ready for use

While thousands of pages of material have been written about the methods and
applications of fMRI, there are only a few concepts which need to be understood
to follow the ideas developed in this paper:
The fMRI device allows scientists to inspect changes in Blood Oxygen Levels
as various areas of the brain become more or less active.
While there are literally millions of interactions within the brain, linked to our
behavior and our perceptions, only three areas within the brain will be examined
here – the Amygdala, a center of emotion and the Orbitofrontal cortex, the
area of the brain responsible for decision making, logical analysis, and high level
reasoning.
The hypothalamus is a small structure located at the base of the brain. It is
responsible for many basic functions such as body temperature, sleep, appetite,
sexual drive, stress reaction, and the regulation of other activities. The
hypothalamus also controls the function of the pituitary gland which in turn
regulates key hormones.
We shall return to the interactions of these three components of the brain, along
with the effects of various neurotransmitters (chemicals that act on behavior) and
hormones (most notably, testosterone) on the political behavior of voters and
politicians, alike.
Map of key Areas off the Brain

Part II -- Voters and Candidates

Who’s Conservative, Who’s Liberal, and the Choices They Make
A Quest for Certainty

In our day-to-day world, we are confronted with making many decisions. In only a
few of these cases are the consequences and probability of any given outcome
totally clear. When this kind of decision occurs, the “best” choice is readily
apparent. Even when we make a choice for the lesser of a number of evils, we
seldom look back and agonize over whether we did the “right” thing,
As a recent study about how we behave in the more frequent instances where
results are uncertain, our brains behave quite differently than they do when there
is certainty.
“Unfortunately, this isn't how the real world works. In reality,
our gambles [decisions] are clouded by ignorance and
 ambiguity; we know something about what might happen,
but not very much. (For example, it's now clear just how little
we actually knew about Iraq pre-invasion.)
“[When engaged in a gambling game with odds ambiguous,
and difficult to calculate] the players exhibited substantially
more activity in the amygdala and in the orbitofrontal cortex,
which is believed to modulate activity in the amygdala. In
other words, we [fill] in the gaps of our knowledge with fear.
“This fear creates our bias for certainty, since we always
try to minimize our feelings of fear. As a result, we pretend
that we have better intelligence about Iraqi WMD than we
actually do; we selectively interpret the facts until the
uncertainty is removed.
Purposefulness and Decisiveness

In what we perceive to be a dangerous, challenging world, many of the selections

we make in electing and supporting the policies of our leaders can be explained
by a striving for certainty.
Consider the attribute heading the list of the priorities of many when rating others
on their “leadership.” That attribute is one of decisiveness. We expect of our
leaders that they will assess complex problems, and once having made a
decision, “Stay the Course.” Perceiving “flip-flopping” in incumbents or
candidates tends to make us uneasy, and to lose confidence in their ability to
solve problems of greatest concern.
This quest for certainty goes a long way toward explaining the conservative
personality. Moreover, it serves to provide am understanding of the electorate
since 1994, as well as the profound aggression displayed toward traditional
media editorial positioning as well as the negativity toward academia.
In an article titled, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,"
published in the July, 2003 issue of the American Psychological Association's
Psychological Bulletin, a profile of this personality is clearly set forth.
The researchers reviewed fifty years of literature related to finding commonalities
in the behavior of the conservative. In summary, they found the following
common to the thinking of those so categorized:
• Fear and aggression
• Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
• Uncertainty avoidance
• Need for cognitive closure
Fear and Aggression

The conservative sees those who differ in any way from himself, (personally,
culturally, racially, gender or sexual preference among others) as persons to be
feared, and as targets for aggression. After all, “a good offense is the best
defense.” The greater the difference the greater the perceived threat. The greater
the perceived threat, the more likely the hostile response, regardless of the
nature of actual provocation.
The author sees this fear of differences as serving to explain much of what
we see as prejudice – whether racial, religious, or gender preference.
Behavior or cultural values different from one’s own, under this paradigm,
would automatically elicit anxiety. When some members of the targeted
group demonstrate behavior seen as threatening, the perception of threat
readily generalizes to the entire group. Thus, when we are told of drive-by
shootings in predominantly black neighborhoods, association of criminal
behavior with racial membership becomes an easy connection to make.
Whenever change occurs in the life of an individual, it brings with it uncertainty,
As discussed above, uncertainty evokes anxiety. To avoid this uncertainty and
the accompanying anxiety, the conservative personality seeks clarity and
simplicity. Complex ideas contain ambiguity and many “shades of gray,” are
difficult to process. Such processing, in the brain of the conservative produces
real and genuine fatigue.
Attention Fatigue

Giving one’s attention to the unfamiliar, the new, the challenging requires energy.
As with physical activity, demanding exercise drains energy reserves. Like
physical activity, attention, concentration, and focus, eventually depletes nervous
energy available.
In this experiment, the following results appear to support this conclusion:
Stanford professor Baba Shiv invented an experiment where
he manipulated the "cognitive load" of subjects. Shiv gave
half of the subjects a two-digit number to memorize (low
load), while the other half were given a seven-digit number
(high load). Subjects were then instructed to walk to another
room in the building. On the way they passed by a table at
which they were presented with a choice between a caloric
slice of chocolate cake or a bowl of fruit salad. Fifty-nine
percent of the people trying to remember seven digits
(high load) chose the cake, while sixty-three percent of
the two-digit subjects (low load) chose the fruit salad. In
other words, having people memorize an extra five digits
made them exhibit significantly less self-control.
Why did the number of digits have such a strong effect? Shiv
speculates that the effort required to memorize seven
 numbers drew cognitive resources away from our ability to
control our urges. This makes anatomical sense, since
working memory and self-control are both located in our pre-
frontal cortex. Having to remember seven numbers occupied
neurons that would otherwise help us decide what to eat,
which causes us to become more reliant on our impulsive
emotions. While we tend to think of self-control as being an
innate trait, it is actually dependent on a range of extrinsic
factors, all of which affect the way our brain responds to a
given situation.
Thus, the need to process complex questions with simple answers. Repetitive
and certain-sounding slogans are likely to elicit more positive responses than will
complex analyses containing many options, costs, benefits, and explanations. It
is far easier to process, “If we don’t conquer them there, we will be fighting them
here,” than to deal with the extraordinarily complex issue of how best to protect
the country from a within-borders attack.
Beyond the selection of political leaders, these concepts potentially serve
to explain many of the attitudes and beliefs prevalent among
conservatives.
Those who revel in chaos, disorder, ambiguity, and a probabilistic view of
the universe are the exact opposite of the conservative personality. The
great preponderance of those in academia are just such people. This
profound difference in problem solving and desire for intellectual challenge
between this group and the conservative personality could well be the
basis for the great animosity existing between these groups. Factor in the
perceived or actual threat the academic poses by exposing the children of
conservatives to new ways of thinking and managing knowledge and this
threat is perceived as very real, indeed.
The journalist, too, is typified by curiosity, accuracy, a search for detail,
and a demand for clarification of ambiguity. Is it any surprise that this
professional group, as with academics, is the target of hostility, if not
outright hatred, from the Conservative?
Words and Actions

One of the key factors distinguishing between the Conservative and Liberal is the
choice of tools used for problem solving. The Conservative sees military force,
property destruction, and physical coercion as the preferred method for
addressing disputes. (“Our job is to kill people and break things”). Conversely,
the Liberal selects words, as well as money, using symbolic, rather the physical
tools preferred by Conservatives, to solve complex problems.
We have only to inspect the proposals for resolving the Iraq War, to discern these
differences. In the face of united opposition, the Bush Administration was
steadfast and unwavering in its view that “Victory,” through the employment of
military force was the only solution to then existing conditions in Iraq. All of the
Republican contenders for the 2008 Presidential nomination, voiced variations of
this same theme, even when acknowledging that this strategy may well end
in failure. While Liberals acknowledged the necessity for some level of force,
their diversity of proposed solutions, all included negotiation, economic aid, and
political action as primary elements necessary to achieve ultimate peace in Iraq,
and throughout the Middle East.
This animosity between words and actions extends to other areas of policy
preference, as well. The desire of many Republican politicians and party
members to address the immigration problem with security, deportation,
and exclusion from American society, when contrasted with the Liberal’s
proposals for integration, amnesty, and a path to citizenship might well be
interpreted in the same way.
Reliance on Tradition

For those who crave certainty in their lives, who see the world as binary and
simple, it is far easier (thus less fatiguing and painful) to recall past solutions to
similar problems, than it is to find novel strategies to resolve the newly presented
challenge. Of course, while there are similarities in problems, there are also
differences.
Such reasoning goes something like this: The old problem to which a satisfactory
or satisfying resolution has been found contains attributes and characteristics
designated as a,b,c,d.e.f.
When a new problem presents itself, analysis of its ingredients reveals that it
contains some elements that are exactly the same as the initial problem. These
are identified as a,b,c. Yet it contained some elements different from the first
problem, g,h,i. The notation for expressing this description is shown below. The
Union of the two sets (the common elements of the two sets) is the area
represented as the white background containing the elements in common (a,b,c).
The non-common elements are shown in different colors, over a gray
background. This background represents the expected diminution in attention
directed at these disparate elements.
Problemold = {a,b,c,d,e,f} and Problemnew = {a,b,c,g,h,i}
 Prominence of Similarities and Differences Between Old and New Problems

Using the findings of the Shiv experiment, it can be inferred that the differences
between Problemold and Problemnew will be less prominent in consciousness
than will be the case for the similarities. The importance of the differences can
be expected to be relegated to the view of being, “differences that don’t make a
difference.”
Can this theoretical construct be translated to familiar real-world problems?
• Although there is considerable diversity among Republicans regarding many
issues, there is one about which there is universal agreement – conformity to
a “strict constructionist” view of the Constitution. Senate conservatives will go
to great lengths to prevent confirmation of any nominee holding “progressive
views” to the Federal Judiciary. The notion that it was not even possible for
the writers of the Constitution to anticipate or even consider future
fundamental societal changes seems to hold no merit to those subscribing to
this rigid view.
• The mottos and symbols of time past seem to hold particular value to the
conservative. Biblical proscriptions and prescriptions become the foundation
for issue advocacy. The American Flag is such a symbol of reverence that
attempts are made from time to time to make its destruction, burning or
desecration, a criminal offense.
• The ultimate symbol of tradition is the (Christian) Bible – if you have any
doubts of this, recall the uproar accompanying a new Congressman when he
took the (symbolic, not the actual) oath of office using the Quran at a
swearing-in ceremony.
Morality and the Conservative

For most people their concepts of good and evil, morality and ethics originate
with authority. Conservatives perceive the origin of morality as coming from
some specific authority, such as the teachings of their religion, their parents, or
their clergy. Those who see morality originating with authority, see moral rules
has being absolute, unvarying, with breaches of these rules being largely
unforgivable. Conservatives almost universally hold this view of morality, best
articulated in the communications issued from the neo-conservatives.
Many Liberals hold a quite different view of what constitutes acceptable or
unacceptable behavior. Rather than originating with a single source, they see the
aggregate culture of which they are a member, as the provider of moral
guidance. Since societal values will vary, such a view is identified as moral
relativism. Others will argue that morality determined by the situation in which
one finds himself, another relativistic view of morality.
Even the most stringent supporter of the tenets of moral absolutism is forced to
concede that that the same act can at once be moral, (in fact required under
traditional moral views), while with only a minor change be viewed as the among
the most heinous of crimes – murder.
To better understand this distinction, consider the trolley
dilemma, a philosophical thought-puzzle first coined by
Judith Jarvis Thompson in the early 1970's:
Suppose you are the driver of a trolley. The trolley rounds a
bend, and there come into view ahead five track workmen,
who have been repairing the track. The track goes through a
bit of a valley at that point, and the sides are steep, so you
must stop the trolley if you are to avoid running the five men
down. You step on the brakes, but alas they don't work. Now
you suddenly see a spur of track leading off to the right. You
can turn the trolley onto it, and thus save the five men on the
straight track ahead. Unfortunately, there is one track
workman on that spur of track. He can no more get off the
track in time than the five can, so you will kill him if you turn
the trolley onto him. Is is morally permissible for you to turn
the trolley?
In this hypothetical case, about ninety five percent of people
agree that it is morally permissible to turn the trolley. Some
moral philosophers even argue that it is immoral to not turn
the trolley, since such a decision leads to the death of four
extra people. But what about this scenario:
You are standing on a footbridge over the trolley track. You
can see a trolley hurtling down the track; it's out of control.
You turn around to see where the trolley is headed, and
there are five workmen on the track...What to do? Being an
expert on trolleys, you know of one certain way to stop an
out-of-control trolley: Drop a really heavy weight in its path.
But where to find one? It just so happens that standing next
to you on the footbridge is a fat man, a really fat man. He is
leaning over the railing, watching the trolley; all you have to
do is to give him a little shove, and over the railing he will go,
 onto the track in the path of the trolley. Would it be
permissible for you to do this?
The brute facts, of course, remain the same: one man must
die in order for five men to live. If our ethical decisions were
perfectly rational, then we would act identically in both
situations, and would be as willing to push the fat man as we
are to turn the trolley. (Kant wouldn't have seen any
difference.) And yet, almost nobody is willing to actively
throw another person onto the train tracks. The decisions
lead to the same outcome, and yet one is [is agreed as
being] moral and one is murder.
A real-life study of efforts to raise funds to assist victims of the Darfur Genocide
reveals a sharp decline in funds raised when advertisements when statistics
demonstrating the magnitude of the tragedy were substituted
The difference in the two actions is that one is seen as being impersonal, wile the
personal behavior clearly requires directed personal action. fMRI recordings
clearly indicate that even when presented with a written, rather than video or
photographic description of a hypothetical situation, brain responses are
differentially activated as subjects attend to the scenarios. In a study titled, fMRI
Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment, a clear difference in
the patterns of response by seven areas of the brain, to Moral Impersonal,
Moral Personal and Non- Moral decisions is shown in the graph below.
Brain Activation under Differing Moral Choices

An Hypothesis which might further explain the apparent “coldness” of the

Conservative might well rest with a failure of this brain to differentiate
between Personal and Impersonal Morality. Certainly, this would be
consistent with the desire for simplicity, blurring the perceived differences
between quite different situational perceptions.
Need for Strong (Masculine) Leader

Returning for the moment to the seeking of certainty, we can see how a strong
leader (much like the father figure model assumed by Ronald Reagan) has
extraordinary appeal for the conservative personality. Found on Page 1 of The
Neuroscience of Leadership, the authors tell us
‘Working memory — the brain’s “holding area,” where
perceptions and ideas can first be compared to other
information — is frequently engaged when people encounter
something new. When you see a new product on a
supermarket shelf and rationally compare its benefits to a
product you already use, it’s your working memory that takes
in the new information and matches it against the old. This
kind of memory activates the prefrontal cortex, an energy-
intensive part of the brain.
‘The basal ganglia, on the other hand, are invoked by
routine, familiar activity, like putting an often-purchased
product into a supermarket cart without consciously paying
attention, and perhaps without later remembering having
picked it out. This part of the brain, located near the core, is
where neural circuits of long-standing habit are formed and
held. It requires much less energy to function than working
memory does, in part because it seamlessly links simple
behaviors from brain modules that have already been
shaped by extensive training and experience.
‘The basal ganglia can function exceedingly well without
conscious thought in any routine activity. In contrast, working
memory fatigues easily and can hold only a limited amount
of information “on line” at any one time. Therefore, any
activity conducted repetitively (to the point of becoming a
habit) will tend to get pushed down into the basal ganglia,
the habit-center part of the brain. This frees up the
processing resources of the prefrontal cortex.”
While findings such as cited above provide confirmation of much of what has
been discussed, observations of characteristics common to all of our Presidents
clearly set our top leaders aside from the general population. Thus far, every
president has been a male, taller than the average. All of the remembered
presidents have had interest in sports, and engaged in physically demanding
recreation – ranching, sailing, mountain biking, golf, etc. Many had served in the
Military during periods of combat. With few exceptions, (notably Richard Nixon
and Jimmy Carter), they were perceived as being virile, sexually attractive men.
Almost all elected, or elevated from the Vice Presidency, were viewed as
charismatic and decisive.
There are many inferences which seem evident from such expression of
masculinity. While there have been notable exceptions, there is a pronounced
difference in the representation of males in political leadership positions, as
opposed to any other occupation. The closest private sector parallel to the
occupation of President of the United States is that of corporate Chief Executive.
Even there, while women overall were (as of the 2000 census) 46.4% of the U.S.
Labor Force, and were over represented in the Management and Professional
occupational category (50.6%), they comprised only 23.8% of Chief Executives.
With 100% of males historically occupying the presidency, coupled with
the parallel private sector data, the likelihood of Hillary Clinton achieving
the nomination as the Democratic Party candidate for President, appeared
(during the 2008 primary season) to this author, less probable than other
male competitors, based solely on gender.
A second element, critical to the perception of masculinity, “a man’s man,” is
energy and strength. While the conservative reveres tradition and experience,
the perception of debility and fatigue is a confidence killer to the campaign of any
candidate.
Thus, John McCain is appears at a severe disadvantage. His age, and
lack of energy are painfully evident in the flatness of his delivery in his
speeches. Coupled with this projected lack of energy is his apparent
carelessness in presenting conclusions, so transparently self-serving, they
and he are dismissed as either a fool/and or a liar.
Decisiveness, identified as the killer of uncertainty, is among the most valued of
traits expected of the leader, and is almost always associated with masculinity.
This attribute has two requirements. The decisive leader must have conviction
about the correctness of his position; equally important is his ability to
communicate the nature of his position, and the rationale for it must be perceived
as credible.
Testosterone and Success

There have been numerous studies relating success in this and other cultures
with characteristics associated with masculinity (such as height), shown to have
a direct relationship to educational attainment and income. Interestingly, more
subtle visual elements serve to reflect the testosterone level found in a given
male. Specifically, women, will differentiate attractiveness of male faces, as a
function of where they are in their menstrual cycle. The study also linked other
elements of masculinity to personality and behavioral traits.
The results are supported by previous research which
showed that a male hormone smells unpleasant to women,
except in the week of fertility. Also, the smells of more
symmetrical, and therefore more attractive, men are
preferred by women but again only in that week.
 Men who look more masculine have higher levels of male
hormones and also show a better ability to fight off disease.
This makes them attractive as potential mates because their
children will inherit this useful characteristic.
Professor Perrett believes that preferences for certain types
of faces will have an effect on the partners people choose:
"We keep finding very strong links between the appearance
of males and their perceived personality. People reckon they
can judge personality from the way others look."
"And as long as those links are there, I think preferences will
be a profound influence on choice," he said.
He also points out that there are real links between face form
and behavior. For example, a study has shown that more
masculine-looking US servicemen are more likely to get
divorced and be violent towards their partners.
Historically a preponderance of Presidents and members of Congress, as well as
Justices of the Supreme Court had physical appearances indicative of
testosterone derived masculinity – particularly those of the last half of the 20th
Century, whose television appearance was carefully crafted to emphasize this
characteristic. For those women who have succeeded in positions of political
leadership, few if any can be considered to be the target of male sexual
attraction. If for no other reason than being of an age beyond menopause, their
declining estrogen levels reduce the elements of femininity which they could
have once displayed.
Reliance on Religious Teaching as a Source of Leadership and Wisdom

The reliance on religion as a guide to the global philosophy of the Conservative

has been well established. Intensity of participation in religious activity is the
single best demographic measure, discriminating between political affiliation.
Religious belief has all of the ingredients sought by the Conservative in shaping
his world view. Its teachings are seen as originating with an omniscient and
omnipotent supernatural entity. This entity has, through human designates,
provided mankind with a complete guidebook to its expected (and required
behavior) – which within the United States is referred to as the “Holy Bible.”
How do we arrive at the conclusion that intensity of religious belief discriminates
between Conservative and Liberal? The Pew Forum, a well respected survey
organization, has recently released the findings of a study about religious
affiliation and choices made in the 2006 election as well as the pattern of these
same choices in the two prior elections.
It rather conclusively demonstrated that those with strongest religious affiliations
(regardless of the specific faith) tended toward conservative attitudes, while the
reverse was directly associated with the liberal personality.
 Part III – A Statistical Portrait of the Electorate
Some general contrasts between Liberal and Conservative
To validate some of the views advanced above, a statistical portrait of 2004
voters is presented. In essence, the archetypical Liberal has been portrayed as
being to the left of the midpoint of a continuum reflecting attitudes regarding the
rights and privileges to which all individuals are seen as entitled; s/he is above
the midpoint on a measured combination of Educational/Economic Attainment;
morality and attitudes toward compassion, empathy and concern for people are
in the direction of “Personal” morality as previously described.
The Social Liberal and the Social Conservative

The views of the Social Liberal and the Social Conservative can be drawn in
broad strokes with the Social Liberal pictured as a focused on the Government’s
obligations to care for its citizens, while the Social conservative sees that same
care being the responsibility of the individual, his family, or private sector
organizations.
Some of the issues which follow from these diametrically opposed philosophies
are shown in the table below.
SOCIAL LIBERAL SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE
“Pro Choice” “Pro Life” (Reversal of Roe v. Wade)
Progressive Judiciary Elimination of “Judicial Activism”
Expansion of all medical research, Limitation on stem-cell research and
funded by government applications
Elimination of Death Penalty Death Penalty expansion and reduction
of appeal process
Unlimited recovery in tort suits Tort Reform, limiting recovery in
medical malpractice cases
Use of diplomacy, economic sanctions, Use of military force to achieve foreign
as primary foreign affairs mechanisms policy aims
Priority to individual privacy, with sharp Support of Patriot Act, behavioral
limitations on government access to profiling
private information
Support of Affirmative Action, “Political Elimination of Affirmative Action
Correctness” programs
Gun Control Individual ownership and access to
firearms
Strengthening of United Nations and Reduced involvement and participation
world globalism in the U.N.
Teaching of Evolution as recognized Teaching of “Creationism,” or
Science
No public funds to religiously based
schools
Alternative energy and environmental
concerns have low priority
“Intelligent Design,” in Public Schools
Funding of religiously based schools
with public funds (School Voucher
Program)
Alternative energy and environmental
concerns have high priority

Liberal and Conservative Economic Views

Historically the membership of the Republican party was composed of those who
were wealthy, educated in Ivy League schools, and were clustered in business,
professional, or financial occupations. Consistent with those demographics, they
largely held the values of the ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVE, as shown below.
These views were highly consistent with those social perspectives represented
by the SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE.
Beginning with the mid-term elections of 1994, and the Newt Gingrich “Contract
with America,” There appears to have been a 180 degree reversal in this
continuum, as the religious neo-conservative became the dominant force
representing the perspectives held by the electorate. Their demographics can
best be described as nation’s Caucasian failures. Poorly educated, in the bottom
half of state rankings for income, and largely found in occupations using unskilled
labor, their economic interests largely resembled those of the 1930’s Democrat.
Yet, those who they elected continued to enact legislation reflecting the traditional
Republican philosophy.
Since the ’94 elections, however, this dissonance between the Democratic Party
voter and candidates failed to materialize. Democrats in Congress as well as
President Clinton continued to advocate programs representing the interests of
the Economic Liberal.
ECONOMIC LIBERAL ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVE
Government sponsored welfare Reduced individual and corporate taxes
programs
Expansion of Medicare, Medicaid, Strong limitations on government
giving free medical care to those who sponsored welfare and “safety net”
cannot afford private insurance programs
Government imposed price controls Deregulation of business activity
Heavy taxes on the wealthy and Tax incentives and “Loopholes” offered
corporate earnings to Wealthy and Business
Maintaining Inheritance Tax Ending of Inheritance Tax
Extensive regulation of business Reduced government oversight of
activity economic activity
Personal vs. impersonal Morality

As previously defined, Personal Morality can be thought of as judging behavior

as acceptable or unacceptable, when directed at a known or identified person,
where Impersonal morality is judged only from the perspective of the originating
authority. Personal morality is relativistic, and complex, where Impersonal
morality is Absolute, and simplistic.
Perhaps a prime example of the application of Impersonal Morality was the
intervention of the U.S. Congress in the Terry Schiavo case. After months of
dispute between the Schiavo family who wanted their brain dead daughter’s
feeding tube to continue in place, as the divorced husband insisted that it be
removed, Congress, in an emergency session passed a bill once more
requesting a Court to once again consider the case. After signature by Bush, the
Court ultimately rejected the request, and the feeding tube was removed.
The ultimate rationale adopted by Congress, and protesters alike, was one of
“the sanctity of human life.” In this case, all considerations of the merits of the
opposing argument (and for that matter the appropriateness of Congressional
intervention in the case), were swept aside by the weight of a religiously derived
precept.
Composite Political Personalities

Having conceptualized three dimensions of attitude, graphic representations can

clearly represent the likelihood of advocacy or opposition to various issues, by
both Conservative and the Liberal.
The contemporary Liberal has totally reversed his historic position on the
continuum of economic, educational, and professional standing. Formerly
representing the “working man,” He now occupies the upper ranks of economic
success, educational attainment, and employment in Management or
Professional Positions. He is personal in his morality, supporting individual
protection from harassment (enforcement of “Politically Correct” speech),
advocating universal health care, vast entitlement programs, and a government
providing an economic safety net for all citizens. He supports globalization, and
believes strongly in negotiations as having priority in international relations over
force.
Dimensional Portrait of the Liberal
l-
son a
P er son al
pe r
Im

ED-Eco Status

Liberal Conservative

The prototypical Conservative is seen as the mirror image of the Liberal. While
once perceived of as being a member of the wealthy class, the conservative
voter today tends to be in the lower ranks for both income and education. He
views the arena of issues related to health and economic well being, as being the
responsibility of the individual, rather than that of the government. His view of
morality is decidedly impersonal, with origination of moral justification coming
from tradition and authority, resistant to change from individual situations or
cultural change.
Dimensional Portrait of the Conservative
l-
son a l
P er a
p e rson
Im

ED-Eco Status

Liberal Conservative

The Numeric Findings

To validate what would otherwise remain armchair conjecture, requires that real
world data be associated with the theories advanced here. To do this, a large
collection of 2000 Census and other data was assembled on a state by state
basis. Each of these demographic variables was compared with the percentage
of Total Vote received by George Bush in the 2004 election.
For a variety of technical reasons and user ease of interpretations, all numeric
variables were converted to rankings, with 1 representing the lowest value and
50, the highest for the variable under consideration. While such conversions will
certainly receive some critique from professional researchers, differences in
processing the data in this form, in the end, produces no differences in the
understandings reached by viewers.
The Ed-Econ continuum

As the scatter plot below demonstrates there is a strong relationship between

Family Income added to educational attainment (percentage of state population
with a Bachelor’s Degree or higher) as related to Liberal vs. Conservative
political orientation. While by no means a perfect relationship, all but one of the
states voting for the Democratic candidate were above the median (“Hi Income-
Ed”). The Best fit curve forming the right-side portion of the graphic illustrates the
predominance of lower income states as conservative voters, and upper income
states as Liberals. The recovering trend in the right side graph, present an
interesting group of Red states, in that they are largely clustered in the
Northwest, where the both income and education trend higher than is the case in
the Southeast, where conservatives predominate.
Relationship Between Combined Economic-Educational Rank and Conservatives

Contributing to this reverse upward economic/educational trend are the states of

AK. IO. MT. ND. SD. and WY. Without looking at the specific dynamics affecting
this difference, it should be noted that the overall trend remains intact as
reflected in the graph at left.
Using slightly different calculation methods, we see confirmation of this
relationship to an greater degree. When you see p ≤ .0001 in the table, this can
be interpreted as there is a .9999 probability that having a Liberal or
Conservative point of view is related to the voter’s Household Income and
Educational Attainment.
Contingency Table -Combined Economic-Educational Rank and Conservatives

Personal vs. Impersonal Morality

Unlike The Eco-Ed variable, which is constructed from recorded observations,

the Personal-Impersonal variable is a theoretical construct. No large census
exists to verify the position of the electorate on a state wide basis, with respect to
this variable.
Yet, by 2004, there was no mystery surrounding the Bush view of applied
morality. Perhaps no better measure of the translation of this view to public policy
was the Bush position opposing the funding of research requiring harvesting of
expanded lines of embryonic stem cells. In his generalized view of “protecting the
life of the unborn,” he clearly came down on the side of an impersonal approach
to morality.
What variable or combination of variables would be likely to best predicted by
Bush’s moral views? Religious proscriptions/prescriptions seemed an excellent
place to start. Bush had on various occasions referred to the guidance he
received from his religious belief. At the same time the positions of major
religions on moral issues clearly pointed to some points of differentiation among
competing philosophies. Percentage representation of major religions by state
was available from a number of sources, so the same ranking tools could be
applied.
Two, quite diametrically opposed religions seemed excellent candidates for
consideration. As a “Born Again” Christian, the teachings of the Evangelical
cluster of values appeared most compatible with the Bush personal view.
Conversely, those affiliated with the Jewish faith appeared to hold views
diametrically opposed in direction and content to the Evangelicals.
Initially, these variables taken together appeared to be an ideal metric for
measuring moral views. Because of the sharp difference in actual percentages of
the population, reflected in the histograms below, there was a question of the
relative impact of one group over the other, even when ranking was done.
Percentage by state of Evangelical and Jewish Adherents

The histogram above confirms the differences in both weight and the relative
presences of each population cohort.

Thus, several different computational methods were tried, as shown below. Most
surprising was the relatively greater correspondence between Rank -- Jewish,
vs. Rank -- Evangelical. In any event, religious views are confirmed to have a
powerful effect on moral perspectives.
Confirming the Prototypical Political Model

Recalling the two summary conceptualizations of the hypothesized Liberal and

Conservative, the graphic below appears to confirm this view by using the two
dimensions calculated above.
Combining Measured Dimensions

Part IV– The Sociopathic politician

In all of the previous discussions, regardless of political stance, both the elector
and the elected are seen to have a driving moral philosophy, be it personal or
impersonal, relative or absolute. Yet, there exists within our society a small
percentage, estimated at 1-4% of the population, predominately male, who are
totally lacking in this “Moral Compass.” Those who attain positions of corporate
or government leadership are consistent in demonstrating these characteristic
behaviors:
• Engages in, and in fact seeks, high personal (economic or physical) risk
taking as a critical element of lifestyle
• are callous, cold and calculating
• are devious, clever and cunning
• are ruthless in the extreme
• displays zero empathy
• have no emotions, no emotional processing capability and no ability to
understand other's emotions
• are totally lacking in anxiety
• resistant to pain, and dismissive of physical discomfort
• completely without conscience, remorse and guilt
• are likely to be leaking confidential information or secrets to third parties
• show no limits on their vindictiveness
• constructs believable and credible lies, often undetectable
Rarely, if ever in our history, have we had both a President and Vice President
who demonstrated almost every characteristic of the Sociopath. Yet, George
Bush and Dick Cheney along with Karl Rove formed the perfect storm of
governance by sociopathy.
Neither the author, nor most readers, have training as psychiatric clinicians.
Given this, how can assertions asserting the presence of this most serious of
medical conditions be given credibility?
Like any other research hypotheses, these assertions can be tested, and their
likelihood of being correct, assessed. There are two approaches which can be
usefully applied.
If an individual consistently demonstrates most or all of the behaviors listed
above, it seems appropriate to label him as a sociopath.
As the research in, “Moral judgment fails without feelings,” effectively
demonstrates, there is an area of the brain (the ventromedial prefrontal cortex),
damage which is specifically associated with sociopathic behavior. This small
section of the brain, when damaged, renders one incapable of human feelings –
compassion, empathy, loving. Extended alcoholism as well as other addictions is
frequently associated, either as a cause or effect, with damage to this section
of the brain. Thus, when a history of addiction is established, when coupled to
other indicators, it is probable that this essential component of moral judgment
has been impaired.
Another element of medical history, common to both Bush and Cheney, raises
speculation about its possible impact on brain function. When the brain is
deprived of Oxygen, for even a short period of time, rapid damage begins. First
to respond to this condition are the higher level (cortical functions). Keep this in
mind as you read the following.
George W. Bush
The speculation that something was very wrong in the brain of George W. Bush
is neither new, nor unique to this author. Unlike Dick Cheney, whose behavior
alone is sufficient to characterize him as a sociopath, the etiology of the bizarre
and inexplicable behavior which is generated by the President, remains shrouded
in mystery.
His unbending maintenance of policy positions in the face of overwhelming
evidence demanding reversal, his cliché, repetitive, off-point justifications of
decisions, denial of statements made, even when very public recordings verify
their presence, coupled with his repeatedly incoherent speech leave listeners or
viewers in wonder.
Some Bush watchers are convinced that, rather than having some devastating
and dangerous (to the country) brain injury, Bush is just plain stupid. A 2004
article in Slate, titled, “The Misunderestimated Man - How Bush chose stupidity,”
proposes somewhat complimentary analyses:
The first tells us that he is simply stupid.
“Quotations collected over the years in Slate may leave the
impression that George W. Bush is a dimwit. Let's face it: A
man who cannot talk about education without making a
humiliating grammatical mistake ("The illiteracy level of our
children are appalling"); who cannot keep straight the three
branches of government ("It's the executive branch's job to
interpret law"); who coins ridiculous words ("Hispanos,"
"arbolist," "subliminable," "resignate," "transformationed");
who habitually says the opposite of what he intends ("the
death tax is good for people from all walks of life!") sounds
like a grade-A imbecile.
“And if you don't care to pursue the matter any further, that
view will suffice. George W. Bush governed, for the most
part, the way any airhead might, undermining the fiscal
condition of the nation, squandering the goodwill of the world
after Sept. 11, and allowing huge problems (global warming,
entitlement spending, AIDS) to metastasize toward
catastrophe through a combination of ideology,
incomprehension, and indifference. If Bush isn't exactly the
moron he sounds, his synaptic misfirings offer a plausible
proxy for the idiocy of his presidency.”
For those who continue wedded to deep oedipal interpretations of behavior, we
are provided with:
“Why would someone capable of being smart choose to be
stupid? To understand, you have to look at W.'s relationship
with father. This filial bond involves more tension than meets
the eye. Dad was away for much of his oldest son's
childhood. Little George grew up closer to his acid-tongued
mother and acted out against the absent parent—through
adolescent misbehavior, academic failure, dissipation, and
basically not accomplishing anything at all until well into his
40s.
“Dubya's youthful screw-ups and smart-aleck attitude reflect
some combination of protest, plea for attention, and flailing
attempt to compete. Until a decade ago, his résumé read like
a send-up of his dad's. Bush senior was a star student at
Andover and Phi Beta Kappa at Yale, where he was also
captain of the baseball team; Junior struggled through with
gentleman's C's and, though he loved baseball, couldn't
make the college lineup. Père was a bomber pilot in the
Pacific; fils sat out 'Nam in the Texas Air National Guard,
 where he lost flying privileges by not showing up. Dad drove
to Texas in 1947 to get rich in the oil business and actually
did; Son tried the same in 1975 and drilled dry holes for a
decade. Bush the elder got elected to Congress in 1966;
Shrub ran in 1978, didn't know what he was talking about,
and got clobbered.
“Through all this incompetent emulation runs an
undercurrent of hostility. In an oft-told anecdote circa 1973,
GWB—after getting wasted at a party and driving over a
neighbor's trash can in Houston—challenged his dad. ‘I hear
you're lookin' for me,’ W. told the chairman of the Republican
National Committee. "You want to go mano a mano right
here?" Some years later at a state dinner, he told the Queen
of England he was being seated far away because he was
the black sheep of the family. “
While this witty and thoughtful article provides a credible explanation, there
seems to be sufficient evidence that addiction coupled with a genetic
predisposition to cardiovascular events, to hypothesize a biological foundation to
the incredibly inept performance delivered by this President.. Rather than present
these individually, a review of his verified medical history appears a more
productive foundation to begin the process of constructing some useful
hypotheses to explain his behavior.
Failed Flight Physical

“On August 1, 1972 Bush was grounded, in part (or wholly?)

because he had failed to complete his flight physical [9].
“As an Air National Guard pilot, Bush would have been
required to have a physical examination each year, no later
than July 31. (Flight physicals in the USAF/ANG expire on
the last day of one's birth month. Bush was born July 6.)
Examinations can be accomplished as early as 3 months
before one's birth month.
“Thus, when Bush was ordered on May 4, 1972 to undergo a
flight physical, this would most likely have been the routine
start of the 3 month physical exam window. On May 19,
Bush asked his superiors how to ‘get out of coming to drill
from now through November’ [9]. Flying examinations are
normally given only at drill.”
The implications for failing to take this physical are speculative, yet
nonetheless tantalizing. Did he anticipate that his unit might be assigned
to active duty, which he sought to avoid? Or, was he concerned that his
cocaine use might be discovered? That there can be no certainty as to
what actually transpired to case this gap, is one of the great unanswered
questions, which must be left to the historians to unravel.
Alcohol abuse

“He has admitted problems with alcohol consumption in the

remote past. The week before election day 2000, reporters
found record of an arrest and or conviction [?] for driving
while intoxicated in the 1970s.
“Bush told his doctors in August 2001 that he currently
abstains from alcohol. In 1999 he released a three-page
statement from doctors saying he had "totally abstained from
alcohol during the past 13 years" [4]. “
While drug abuse and binge drinking were far from unusual as the
recreation of choice engaged in by young adults of all generations
following the 1960’s, the prevalence of this deadly combination should not
be taken as any evidence as a lack of consequences from their use.
Should there be any doubt of the accuracy of this warning, consider the
PET Scans of two brains – one normal, the other after long term alcohol
abuse:
Note the destruction
of the frontal cortex
in the brain of the
Alcoholic.

Quite aside from any current abstinence, in assessing Bush’s intellectual

capability, consider the following from an a 2003 analysis of Binge Drinking by
college students. One paragraph says it all:
“Studies show that more than 35 percent of adults with an
alcohol problem developed symptoms—such as binge
drinking—by age 19. Long-term use risks liver damage,
pancreatitis, certain cancers, and literal shrinkage of the
brain. Alcohol use is the second-leading cause of dementia;
one simply ages quicker on alcohol”
Cocaine use

“During his 2000 presidential campaign there were persistent

questions about a history of cocaine use. Eventually Bush
denied using cocaine since 1992, then quickly extended the
cocaine-free period back to 1974 (age 28). NBC reporter
 David Bloom then noted ‘that current White House
appointees must disclose any drug use since their 18th
birthday’ [17]. Bush, however, refused to make a disclosure,
instead admitting he'd made mistakes in the past, and if
voters didn't like that ‘they can go find somebody else to vote
for. That's the wonderful thing about democracy’ [17].
“Comment: … Cocaine use has clear medical implications.
For example, it is associated with elevated risk of acquiring
chronic diseases, such as viral hepatitis and sexually
transmitted disease. Acutely, it can trigger cardiac or
cerebral-vascular catastrophe.”
Fainting/Choking Incident

“On January 13, 2002, Bush lost consciousness while sitting

on a couch in the White House, watching a football game.
His head hit the floor, resulting in an abrasion on his left
cheekbone and a small bruise on his lower lip. The incident
was blamed on a combination of (a) Bush not feeling well in
previous days, and (b) an improperly eaten pretzel. Their
combined effect was to slow the President's heart. (The
description suggests a vaso-vagal attack.) The period of
unconsciousness was brief [28].”
Some unexplained phenomena

“Bush's Presidential debates with John Kerry in 2004

provided an unexpected and rich set of potential medical
observations of Bush, including eye blinking, jaw thrusting,
mouth spittle, and jacket bulging The significance of these
observations is currently unknown, but they are recorded
here should something develop later (even decades later).”
Leading to what Conclusions?

The reader is asked to consider the following hypothetical candidate for

employment as a senior executive in a multi-division company. As Chairman of
the Search Committee, you have gathered all the available information about
him, checked his references, and now are preparing for an initial screening
interview.
The son of a respected political leader, the candidate has a
mediocre educational resume, a general history of failure in
attempts at business leadership, and an unexplained
failure to qualify for a flight physical during National Guard
Service.
 He has held a successful, if undistinguished mid-level
management position, which should provide the requisite
knowledge necessary for the position he is seeking.
He is well liked, fosters loyalty of employees, and is viewed
personally as “good ‘ol boy,” and “a guy you’d like to have
a beer with.”
His medical history includes a multi-year period of severe
alcoholism and drug abuse, extending beyond college age,
and at least one incident during which his brain may have
been deprived of oxygen for a short, but inexactly known
period. There is suggestive evidence of additional heart
arrhythmias, evidenced by a the appearance of some
unexplained bulging of the jacket, indicating the potential
use of a portable defibrillator. Additionally his father had a
similar history of cardiovascular problems.
During your initial employment interview, he makes major
grammatical mistakes, mispronounces common words,
and fails to demonstrate the most rudimentary knowledge
of the organizational structure of companies having
positions similar to that of your company. You are aware
that this behavior, with the accompanying medical history
stated here, is indicative of moderate to severe damage to
intellectual functions of the brain.
Since all of the medical information has come from public media reports, some
speculative in nature, you are restricted from probing this information in any
depth – at least not in this initial round of interviews.
Using only his interview performance, and the inferences you draw from the
probable, but unconfirmed medical history, do you want to screen him out, or
pass him to the next round of interviews?
All of the above was known to the electorate in 2004. It is indeed curious that the
voters accepted him as their President in the face of such damning information.
Dick Cheney
In Cheney’s case, we need no medical history to substantiate our suspicions that
he is a classic political sociopath.
Early Dick Cheney – Some Initial Clues

From an “Unauthorized” Cheney biography we find some illuminating background

information:
Jacob Plotkin was Cheney's Yale roommate: "It's hard to
flunk out of Yale. It's something that one really has to put
effort into. Yale at that time tried to make sure everybody
who entered graduated. Where others might spend some
time on the weekend studying, Dick was either talking,
drinking or playing cards with his football buddies."
From 1962 through 1966 Cheney applies and is granted
deferment from military service four successive times.
During his confirmation hearings for Secretary of Defense He made this
statement:
Cheney, when asked why he sought draft deferments during
the Vietnam war said "I had other priorities in the '60s than
military service."
So much for any sense of duty to country.
Making the Cheney “Bones”

In 1990. after confirmation as Secretary of Defense, the following shows a

pattern of disregard for facts and prohibited behavior demonstrated by Cheney.
AUGUST 1: Cheney gets briefing from General Norman
Schwarzkopf about Iraqi threats against Kuwait.
AUGUST 2: Iraq invades Kuwait.
AUGUST: Cheney flies to Saudi Arabia to convince King
Fahd to allow US troops into his country.
SEPTEMBER: The Pentagon says that 250,000 Iraqi troops
with 1500 tanks are massed on the Saudi border. The
photos are never made public.
Soviet satellite imagery taken that day shows no troops near
the border. (see the photos)
1991: Journalist Jean Heller learns about the Soviet satellite
imagery and presents them to Dick Cheney's office at the
Pentagon. They ignore the story.
in 1995, with Clinton in his first term, Cheney’s long and profitable business
relationship with Halliburton pays off He is appointed C.E.O.
 Business reporter Dan Briody says that Halliburton did
business with both the U.S. government and its enemies.
"Dick Cheney is simply the latest in a succession of
politicians that Halliburton has used to secure government
contracts.
He (Cheney) says he wasn't aware that Halliburton was
doing business with Iraq while he was CEO...if you believe
that either he's a very bad CEO for not being aware or he's
not telling the truth."
During his five year stint at Halliburton, the company wins
$2.3 billion in federal contracts, almost double the total of the
previous five years, and another $1.5 billion in taxpayer-
insured loans.

Halliburton is fined almost 4 million for selling products to

Libya that could be used to trigger a nuclear program.
In March, 1995: President Clinton signs an order prohibiting "new investments [in
Iran] by U.S. persons, including commitment of funds or other assets." U.S.
companies are prohibited from performing services "that would benefit the Iranian
oil industry." Companies face fines of up to $500,000 and individuals may receive
10 years in jail for breaking the embargo. By May, 1995 President Clinton
imposes a near total U.S. economic embargo on Iran.
The Halliburton Years – Godfather of the Military-Industrial Complex

With this embargo in place, follow the Halliburton money, with C.E.O., Dick
Cheney at the helm. Watch as he plays fast and loose with presidential orders,
apparently unconcerned with U.S. efforts to protect itself from its enemies.
Abdulamir Mahdi, an Iraqi who'd come to Canada in his 20's
owned a business that supplied oil fields in Iran with North
American parts. His Toronto office places an order for
$41,000 worth of Halliburton spare parts for a cementing unit
in Iran.
He says before the deals, he consulted with lawyers and
Canada Customs who told him that the US embargo didn't
apply to Canadians.
SEPTEMBER 25: Halliburton Energy Services prepares an
invoice for spare parts that have been sold to Abdulamir
Mahdi. The invoice puts Kuwait as the final destination for
the parts. In fact, the equipment is headed for Kala Naft in
Iran.
OCTOBER 7: In a purchase separate from the Mahdi
transaction, Kala Naft’s London office, the purchasing arm
for the National Iranian Oil Company asks Halliburton
subsidiary in Dubai to send a price quote for purchases for
the Iranian oil industry.
OCTOBER 16: Mahdi’s office receives a statement of
compliance from Halliburton Energy Services in Texas
saying the parts he ordered has been inspected and meet
Halliburton and industry standards
OCTOBER 30: Spare parts purchased by Mahdi are shipped
to Canada for a Halliburton cement unit in Iran.
Halliburton is opposed to the U.S. embargo and lobbies
congress against the Iran/Libya sanctions bill.
Abdulamir Mahdi sold
Halliburton's and other parts to
Iran. He was arrested and spent
four years in U.S. custody for
evading export laws. He wrote a
letter to Dick Cheney. "If I'm
guilty, you're guilty. If you're
innocent, I'm innocent. You did
business with the same country
that I did."

Abdulamir Mahdi sold Halliburton's and other parts to Iran.

He was arrested and spent four years in U.S. custody for
evading export laws. He wrote a letter to Dick Cheney.
"If I'm guilty, you're guilty. If you're innocent, I'm innocent.
You did business with the same country that I did."
In Nivember, 1009, Abdulamir Mahdi receives a 51-month
sentence on one count of conspiracy to evade export
regulations for sending equipment to Iran and Iraq. (read
about the case .)
Early in 2000,: Halliburton opens an office in Tehran while
Cheney is still CEO. At the same time, Halliburton ends its
presence in Iraq.
Senator Frank Luttenberg:
"To be looking for breaks in the
law that permit them (Halliburton)
to profit while this hostility (with
Iran) is in front of us is
unacceptable under any
condition."
The Mature Sociopath

Entering the race for Vice President, Cheney conveniently resigns his C.E.O.
post at Halliburton and financially divests himself, by selling his stock at a 30-
million dollar profit!
Then comes 9/11. Whether from behind the scenes or publicly disclosed by the
media, it is clear that war and security policy comes from Cheney, articulated by
Bush. Intelligence, critical to the interests of the country, is manipulated,
promoted or withheld to meet his personal agenda.
Here are the thoughts of two individuals, caught up in this process of distortion:
Intelligence specialist Greg
Thielman says his State
Department Office was receiving
information that was different
from what the White House was
saying. "Their starting point was
not 'let's try to figure out what is
going on' but 'let's see what kind
of information we can come up
with to justify the policy line we
want to pursue'.
Cheney was the driving force
behind an orchestrated
presentation to the American
public of a different version of
reality than the reality we saw."

Air Force Lieutenant Colonel

Karen Kwiatkowski worked at the
Pentagon along side the 'Office
of Special Plans' a group that
worked with Cheney on
intelligence matters.
"When I heard those (President
Bush's) speeches I recognized
many of the anecdotes. Having
seen the intelligence I knew this
was a manipulation of the
information. It was cherry picked
information, out of context
information. It bothered me a
great deal because I saw it to be
conscious manipulation. Not an
 oversight but consciously done.
If you don't tell Dick Cheney
what he wants to hear, you're out
of a job."

By early 2002, the Bush Administration (read Cheney) campaign to enlist public
support for an Iraq war is well underway. Using the fear of nuclear weapons the
[in]famous “Daisy Ad” impetus for the Vietnam War,
“Ambassador Joe Wilson is told by the CIA that Cheney is
interested in an allegation that Iraq had tried to purchase
Yellow Cake uranium from Niger. Wilson goes to Niger to
investigate and concludes the rumor is false.”.
A memo written in late June, 20002, by INC (Iraqi National
Council) lobbyist Entifadh Qunbar to a U.S. Senate
committee lists John Hannah, a senior national-security aide
on Cheney's staff, as one of two "U.S. governmental
recipients" for reports generated by an intelligence program
being run by the INC and which was then being funded by
the State Department. The letter shows Cheney's office
was getting intelligence from a highly suspect source.
During August, Cheney tells an audience of veterans
"There’s no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons
of mass destruction [and that he will use them] against our
friends, against our allies and against us.”
Selling the nuclear threat became key to convincing
Americans to support the war. The Wilson report had the
potential to completely unravel the carefully crafted
nightmare scenario upon which the Administration had
constructed its justification for removing Saddam.
When Wilson had the temerity to make public his conclusions, the Cheney
guillotine was swift and certain; coupled with an attack on Wilson’s credibility, his
wife was “outed,” as a covert undercover CIA operator. Cheney managed to leak
the information using his Chief of Staff, “Scooter” Libby to disseminate the
secret information to reporters.
Since the leak involved classified information regarding the CIA, the Bush
Administration initiated an investigation of the source of the leak, with Libby, a
loyal friend to Cheney indicted and eventually convicted of perjury -- and much
as Nixon FBI loyalist, Patrick Gray – was left, “hanging in the wind.” For those
seeking a fuller understanding of Cheney’s role in this whole unseemly affair, the
collection of articles found here should provide a rich understanding of what one
might expect from this political predator.
Perhaps this account of the accidental shooting of a long-time personal friend by
Cheney, and the entire handling of this affair is as good a place as any to round
out the picture of the sociopathic lack of human feeling and concern which
typifies Dick Cheney, the man.
Concluding Comments
While, hopefully, the material presented above has provided some insight into the
complex interactions of the human brain with political behavior, much has been
left shrouded in mystery.
We know that there are significant differences in electrical activity between the
brains of conservatives and liberals. Yet we have no clue about how they got to
be the people they are. Are there subtle genetic differences between these
groups? In a 2004 Cover article, Time Magazine notes a number of research
studies which suggest a genetic basis for religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Yet
while the previously noted Pew Study shows major differences in religious beliefs
between the two groups, far more would be required to establish a direct genetic
origin for political belief.
With much of this nation demanding withdrawal of the Iraq forces, a huge
question remains. With such opposition, how is the military able to recruit men
and women who are willing to risk either their lives or the chance of permanently
life-changing injury to serve? The Department of Defense has enlisted a number
of combat veterans to travel around the country, telling audiences, “Why I Serve.”
Ask Army Staff Sgt. Jerome MacDonald why he serves in the
military, and he doesn’t talk about pay raises, tuition
assistance or job security.
“My biggest reason for serving is my family,” said
MacDonald, a combat medic who returned in 2006 from a
deployment to Iraq.

“I looked at my family, and I realized that I want them and

their way of life to be protected,” he said. “And one of the
only ways to do that is to go overseas and take the fight to
the enemy who are perfectly willing to come here and kill
themselves just to kill an American. … It requires some
sacrifice, but I am willing to do that.”
That he steadfastly holds the belief that indeed that his family’s life
requires protection, in the face of compelling contrary evidence,
cause one to call this view into question, remains a mystery to this
writer.
Last, but far from least, is the public apathy toward government, The Boomers
and their children were the most activist generations in American history. Yet,
today, as they approach old age or middle age respectively, neither group
appears willing or able to take on the what is perhaps the highest level of
corruption, lying and incompetence at any time in U.S. History
,