TL;DR
Get health and wellness essentials 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 MedPage Today opinion, child psychiatrist Jonathan Slater argued that candidates who won in the 2026 midterm elections could offer young people examples of representation, perseverance and respectful disagreement. His piece cites surveys and research on youth well-being, but does not report a measured mental health effect from the election results themselves.
Slater wrote that his 32-year-old son sent him a New York Times story about new officeholders and suggested the election offered a message about decency and difference. Slater, who said he treats children as a psychiatrist, connected that observation to his earlier writing about the Knicks’ championship as a teaching moment for parents.
The candidates he highlighted included Annie Andrews, a South Carolina pediatric hospitalist who won a Senate seat after campaigning on children’s health; Adam Hamilton, a pastor elected to the Senate in Kansas; and Josh Turek, an Iowa Paralympian and two-time wheelchair basketball gold medalist who also won a Senate seat. Slater also described New Jersey House winner Rebecca Bennett as a former Navy helicopter pilot and healthcare business leader.
Slater pointed to other election outcomes he described as historic, including Keisha Lance Bottoms becoming the first Black woman elected governor in the United States, Chris Pappas becoming the first openly gay man elected to the Senate, and Abdul El-Sayed becoming the first Muslim senator. He also named Melat Kiros, 29, as the first Gen Z woman elected to Congress, and James Talarico, 37, as the Senate’s youngest member. These characterizations and election details are presented in Slater’s opinion piece and its cited reporting.
His central point was that children may find public figures whose experiences resemble their own. A young person who is gay, has a disability, or belongs to a historically underrepresented community might see someone like them succeed in public life. Slater said that visibility can help children feel a stronger sense of belonging, though the article does not show that these particular results have produced measurable changes in children’s mental health.
Representation Gives Children Examples
Slater’s argument matters to parents, educators and clinicians because children interpret public events through the examples adults and institutions provide. He wrote that young people have been exposed to campaign attacks and hostile political exchanges, which can contrast with lessons about cooperation and respect. The election’s diverse winners, he argued, give adults specific people to discuss with children rather than relying on abstract messages about inclusion.
The opinion cites research and surveys to support that case. Slater reported that 90% of LGBTQ+ young people in a 2024 Trevor Project survey said politics had harmed their well-being in the previous year. He also cited an earlier survey in which more than 80% said positive public role models made them feel better about who they are. Those are survey findings about young people’s reported experiences; they do not establish that election results themselves improve mental health.
Slater also cited research connecting civic participation and cross-group friendships with young people’s well-being. He referred to a national study following more than 9,000 adolescents into adulthood, in which volunteering and voting were associated with better later mental health and fewer risky behaviors. His takeaway is that community engagement and relationships can matter, while disagreement need not become contempt.
Products Worth Considering
Philips Sonicare ProtectiveClean 5300 Rechargeable Electric Toothbrush, Black, with 3 Brush Heads
Fitbit Inspire 3 Health and Fitness Tracker Bundle
Oura Ring 5 Smart Ring – Stealth, Size 11
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Election Behind the Argument
The article was published the morning after the Nov. 3, 2026, midterm elections. Slater wrote that his son had forwarded the Times report early Wednesday and asked him to develop the themes of decency and difference. Slater had previously written about the Knicks’ championship as a way for parents to discuss values with children.
Slater situated the election against a backdrop of political stress. He cited a pre-election finding that 77% of American adults named the nation’s future as a significant source of stress. He also discussed the campaign experience of Ohio governor-elect Amy Acton, a physician and former state health director who has spoken about childhood trauma and abuse. Slater said an opponent’s late-campaign advertisement featured Acton’s estranged mother calling her a liar; he argued that Acton’s public account could give hope to children with similar histories.
The piece is an opinion essay, not a clinical study or an election-results analysis. Its descriptions of candidates and research support Slater’s argument, but the article does not assess children before and after the election or establish a direct causal effect.
Mental Health Effects Remain Unmeasured
The article offers Slater’s interpretation of the election, not evidence that the results have already improved children’s mental health. It does not include follow-up data, direct interviews with children, or an evaluation of whether exposure to the winning candidates changes young people’s sense of belonging or distress.
The cited survey percentages describe respondents’ reported experiences within the surveys’ stated populations and time periods. They do not show that public role models alone caused changes in well-being. The opinion also does not provide enough detail to independently evaluate every study or candidate description it references. Any claims about direct benefits should therefore be treated as the author’s argument, rather than a confirmed clinical outcome.
How Adults Can Extend the Lesson
Slater’s immediate call is for parents and clinicians to talk with children about the people elected and what their stories may mean. Those conversations can recognize representation without suggesting that children must agree with a candidate’s policies. He argues that adults can model respectful disagreement and draw attention to public service, perseverance and care for others.
The article does not announce a program, policy change or research follow-up tied to the election. Whether the outcomes described have a lasting effect on children will require evidence beyond the opinion piece, including research that measures young people’s experiences over time. For now, the next step Slater proposes is a conversation: help children connect public events to belonging, civic participation and respect.
Key Questions
What is the news development?
Child psychiatrist Jonathan Slater published a Nov. 4 opinion piece arguing that candidates who won in the Nov. 3 midterms can offer children examples of representation, perseverance and respectful disagreement.
Which winners does Slater highlight?
He names South Carolina pediatrician Annie Andrews, Kansas pastor Adam Hamilton, Iowa Paralympian Josh Turek and former Navy helicopter pilot Rebecca Bennett, alongside other winners he describes as historic firsts.
Does the article prove the election improved children’s mental health?
No. It presents Slater’s interpretation and cites research and surveys about role models, politics and youth well-being. It does not measure a mental health effect caused by the election results.
What research does Slater cite?
He cites Trevor Project survey findings about LGBTQ+ young people’s reported experiences and research associating civic participation and cross-group friendships with aspects of youth well-being. The findings do not establish that election outcomes alone cause better mental health.
What does Slater recommend adults discuss with children?
He encourages adults to talk about candidates’ varied backgrounds, public service and perseverance, while modeling the distinction between political disagreement and contempt.
Source: medpagetoday.com
