TL;DR
Get workout gear delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
In a Nov. 4 opinion essay, child psychiatrist Jonathan Slater argued that several candidates who won in the Nov. 3, 2026, midterm elections could offer children examples of representation, resilience and cooperation. His argument draws on research about role models and youth well-being, but the essay does not establish that the election results themselves improved children’s mental health.
Child psychiatrist Jonathan Slater argued in a Nov. 4 opinion essay that candidates elected in the Nov. 3, 2026, midterm elections could give children examples of people overcoming barriers and working across differences. His piece frames the election as a potential teaching moment for families and pediatric clinicians, rather than reporting evidence that the results have already changed children’s mental health.
Slater, writing for MedPage Today, points to several newly elected politicians whose backgrounds differ in faith, race, disability, age and career. Among them are Annie Andrews, a South Carolina pediatric hospitalist; Adam Hamilton, a United Methodist pastor elected in Kansas; and Josh Turek, an Iowa Paralympian who won two gold medals in wheelchair basketball. The essay also names former Navy helicopter pilot Rebecca Bennett, elected to the House from New Jersey.
Slater highlights other reported milestones, including Georgia’s Keisha Lance Bottoms becoming the first Black woman elected governor in the United States, New Hampshire’s Chris Pappas becoming the first openly gay man in the Senate, and Michigan’s Abdul El-Sayed becoming the first Muslim senator. These election descriptions and firsts are presented in Slater’s essay, which cites a New York Times report; the supplied material does not include independent election records or the underlying Times article.
The author connects representation to research on youth development. He cites a Trevor Project survey in which 90% of LGBTQ+ young people said politics had harmed their well-being in the previous year. He also refers to earlier survey findings on public role models and to research associating adolescent volunteering and voting with later mental health outcomes. The essay does not provide full study citations or establish that these findings measure the effect of the 2026 election.
Role Models After a Stressful Campaign
The essay addresses a concern for parents and clinicians: young people may absorb the strain of political conflict around them. Slater says children have been exposed to campaign attacks and adults arguing about politics, and he argues that stories of candidates with varied life experiences can offer a counterexample centered on belonging, persistence and civic participation.
That argument is relevant to children who rarely see people like themselves in positions of public authority. A young person with a disability, for example, may take meaning from a Paralympian entering the Senate, while LGBTQ+ youth may relate to an openly gay elected official. Slater presents these possibilities as reasons adults might discuss the election with children. They are plausible applications of the cited research, not proof that a particular candidate’s victory has improved a child’s well-being.
Products Worth Considering
Blueair Blue Pure 511i Max Air Purifier
Garmin Forerunner 255 GPS Running Smartwatch – 46 mm, Slate Gray
Oral-B iO Series 3 Rechargeable Electric Toothbrush for Adults, Black, 3 Modes, 2 Brush Heads and Travel Case
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Election as a Teaching Moment
Slater’s essay follows an earlier column in which he described the New York Knicks’ championship as a teaching opportunity for parents. He says his 32-year-old son suggested using the election’s new officeholders to make a similar point about decency and difference. The essay is therefore an opinion piece about how adults might interpret the election, not a clinical study or an election-results report.
The source cites two measures of political stress among young people and adults. It says 77% of American adults identified the nation’s future as a significant source of stress before the last presidential election, and cites the Trevor Project’s 2024 survey finding that 90% of LGBTQ+ young people reported harm to their well-being from politics during the prior year. The figures refer to different populations and time frames and should not be treated as measurements of the same effect.
Slater also discusses Ohio governor-elect Amy Acton, a physician who has spoken publicly about childhood trauma. He argues her account may help children with similar experiences see that trauma need not define them. The essay describes a campaign advertisement featuring Acton’s estranged mother, but the material supplied does not independently verify the dispute or provide responses from the opposing campaign.
What the Election Cannot Prove
The essay makes a case for the potential value of representation, but it does not report a new study measuring children’s reactions to these election results. It is unclear whether the candidates’ victories will change young people’s mental health, how many children will encounter these stories, or whether any effects will last. The research Slater cites concerns broader associations and survey responses, not a direct evaluation of this election.
The supplied report also does not include full citations for the studies on role models, cross-group friendships and civic participation. Election outcomes and descriptions of candidates are relayed through Slater’s account and its reference to a New York Times story; independent confirmation is not included in the source material. The essay’s claims should be read as commentary grounded in research references, not as a finding that the election itself is therapeutic.
How Adults Can Use the Stories
Slater’s practical next step is for parents and pediatric clinicians to talk with children about what they saw during the campaign and what the elected officials’ stories mean to them. His essay encourages adults to present candidates as people with varied experiences, while making room for children to disagree with their political positions. It does not announce a program, clinical recommendation or follow-up study.
Readers seeking to assess the evidence more closely would need the original studies and the full election reporting cited by Slater. Until those materials or new research are available, the immediate development is the publication of his argument—not a documented change in youth mental health outcomes.
Key Questions
What is the news in this report?
Child psychiatrist Jonathan Slater published an opinion essay arguing that candidates elected in the 2026 midterms could serve as role models for children and offer a way to discuss difference, resilience and civic life.
Did the election improve children’s mental health?
The source does not show that it did. Slater argues the election may offer useful examples for young people, but reports no study measuring a mental health effect from these election results.
Which elected candidates does Slater discuss?
His examples include pediatrician Annie Andrews, pastor Adam Hamilton and Paralympian Josh Turek, along with candidates such as Chris Pappas, Abdul El-Sayed and Keisha Lance Bottoms. The supplied material attributes the election descriptions to Slater’s essay and its cited reporting.
What research does the essay cite?
Slater refers to survey findings about political stress among adults and LGBTQ+ youth, research on role models, and a study linking adolescent civic participation with later outcomes. The supplied source does not provide full citations or show that these studies tested the effect of the 2026 election.
What does Slater suggest parents and clinicians do?
He suggests discussing candidates’ stories with children and distinguishing political disagreement from contempt. The essay presents this as an approach for conversation, not as a formal clinical guideline.
Source: medpagetoday.com
