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 MedPage Today opinion article, child psychiatrist Jonathan Slater argued that candidates elected in Tuesday’s midterm elections could offer children examples of representation, resilience and cooperation. His points draw on research about role models and civic participation, but the article does not report new research measuring the elections’ effect on children’s mental health.
Child psychiatrist Jonathan Slater argued in a Nov. 4 MedPage Today opinion article that newly elected candidates with varied backgrounds could give children examples of representation, resilience and civic connection. His article responds to the Nov. 3 midterm elections, but it does not present new evidence that the results have already changed children’s mental health.
Slater said his 32-year-old son sent him a New York Times report about new faces elected to Congress and state offices, highlighting a pediatrician, a pastor, a Paralympian and a former Navy helicopter pilot. Slater framed the election as a chance for parents and clinicians to talk with children about what people from different backgrounds can contribute to public life.
The candidates he discussed included Annie Andrews, a South Carolina pediatric hospitalist who ran for Senate focused on children’s health; Adam Hamilton, a New Hampshire Senate winner who campaigned on faith and working across party lines; and Josh Turek, an Iowa Paralympian and wheelchair basketball player elected to the Senate, according to Slater’s account. He also cited Rebecca Bennett, a former Navy helicopter pilot elected to the House from New Jersey.
Slater pointed to other winners as examples of historic representation, including Georgia governor-elect Keisha Lance Bottoms, New Hampshire senator-elect Chris Pappas and Michigan senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed. He also discussed Ohio governor-elect Amy Acton, a physician who has spoken publicly about childhood trauma. These descriptions and election outcomes are reported in Slater’s opinion piece; the article’s central argument is his interpretation of what they may mean for children.
Representation as a Source of Role Models
Slater’s argument matters to families and pediatric clinicians because children form ideas about identity and belonging partly by observing people they can relate to. He cited research indicating that adolescents often look to role models whose experiences resemble their own. The election examples, he suggested, may help adults start conversations with young people who rarely see people like themselves in positions of influence.
The article also connects representation with cross-group relationships and civic participation. Slater cited studies linking positive public role models for LGBTQ+ young people with improved feelings about identity, and research associating volunteering and voting during adolescence with fewer depressive symptoms later. Those findings provide context, not proof that a particular election outcome causes improved mental health. The practical point is that public events can give adults material for talking about connection, participation and respect.
Slater acknowledged that some children and adults may be disappointed by the election results. He argued that children can respect individuals across political differences without agreeing with their positions, and that disagreement need not become contempt. That distinction offers a way to discuss elections without suggesting every child should share one political view.
Products Worth Considering
Fitbit Versa 2 Health and Fitness Smartwatch with Heart Rate, Alexa, Music, Sleep and Swim Tracking
Oura Ring 4 Smart Ring – Silver – Size 8
Withings BPM Connect Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Blood Pressure Monitor
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Election Behind Slater’s Argument
The piece appeared the morning after the Nov. 3, 2026, midterm elections. Slater wrote that children had been exposed to a campaign season marked by attack advertising and adults arguing about politics. He connected that environment to earlier survey findings: 77% of U.S. adults in a pre-election survey said the nation’s future was a significant source of stress, while 90% of LGBTQ+ young people in the Trevor Project’s 2024 national survey said politics had harmed their well-being in the previous year.
Slater presented the winners’ backgrounds as a counterpoint to that exposure. His article also recalls a previous column about the New York Knicks’ championship as a teaching moment for parents. The new piece is commentary informed by his work as a child psychiatrist; it is not a clinical study of the election or a report documenting children’s responses to the candidates.
“He is living a life he could not have pictured as a boy.”
— Chris Pappas, as quoted in Slater’s article
What the Election Cannot Prove
Slater’s article does not establish whether the newly elected candidates have affected children’s mental health, or whether any such effect will last. The research he cites concerns broader links involving role models, identity, civic engagement and well-being; it does not test the impact of these specific election results. The source also offers no direct interviews with children about how they experienced the campaigns or outcomes.
The article’s account of winners and historic firsts is based on the report Slater referenced, rather than an independent election-results analysis included in the piece. The supplied material also cuts off during a reference to a warning from the head of the American Psychological Association, leaving that point incomplete. Further reporting would be needed to establish the final certified results and assess any measurable effects on young people.
How Families Can Use the Results
Slater’s immediate recommendation is that parents and pediatric clinicians discuss the election with children, using candidates’ biographies to explore identity, perseverance, service and respectful disagreement. He encourages adults to recognize that children may draw inspiration from people who share parts of their experience, while also learning from people whose backgrounds differ from theirs.
The next measurable step would be research tracking how young people respond to representation and civic participation over time. Until then, Slater’s article is best read as a clinician’s argument for using the election as a conversation starter, not as evidence that the election itself improved children’s mental health.
Key Questions
What is the news in this article?
MedPage Today published child psychiatrist Jonathan Slater’s opinion that candidates elected in the Nov. 3 midterms could serve as role models and prompt conversations about identity, connection and civic participation.Does the article show that the election improved children’s mental health?
No. Slater cites broader research about role models and civic engagement, but the article reports no study measuring the mental-health effects of these election results.Which candidates does Slater highlight?
He discusses candidates including Annie Andrews, Adam Hamilton and Josh Turek, as well as governor-elect Amy Acton and several other winners whose backgrounds or historic representation he considers meaningful.What does Slater suggest parents do?
He suggests using candidates’ stories to talk with children about belonging, service, resilience and respectful disagreement, while recognizing that children may connect with people for different reasons.Source: medpagetoday.com
