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
A November 4, 2026, MedPage Today opinion essay argues that newly elected officials with varied identities and life experiences may serve as role models for children. Slater uses the election as a teaching moment and discusses prior research on role models, cross-group friendships and civic engagement.
Child psychiatrist Jonathan Slater argued in a November 4 MedPage Today opinion essay that the 2026 midterm winners could offer children examples of belonging, resilience and cooperation after a campaign season he described as stressful for young people. The essay draws on candidate biographies and previously reported research, presenting an argument about the election as a teaching moment rather than a direct test of its effects on children.
Slater’s argument draws on the backgrounds of several people associated with the election results. He points to Annie Andrews, a South Carolina pediatrician who ran for the Senate, and Josh Turek, an Iowa Paralympian and wheelchair basketball gold medalist who was headed to the Senate. He also cites Adam Hamilton, a pastor who won a New Hampshire Senate seat in Kansas since 1932, and Rebecca Bennett, a former Navy helicopter pilot headed to the House from New Jersey.
The essay also discusses milestones in representation: Keisha Lance Bottoms will be the first Black woman ever elected governor in the United States; Chris Pappas will be the first openly gay man in the Senate; and Abdul El-Sayed will be the first Muslim senator. Slater presents these biographies as examples children may relate to, particularly when a candidate’s identity or experiences resemble their own.
Slater also discusses Amy Acton, a physician and Ohio’s governor-elect, who has spoken publicly about childhood trauma. He recommends telling patients her story and says she shared it so others might see a way out. These are Slater’s interpretations of what the election may mean for young people.
Role Models After a Divisive Campaign
The essay connects election coverage with children’s emotional lives: young people see how adults talk about difference, conflict and public service. Slater discusses how similar role models can matter and argues that children can learn from public figures’ experiences. He also advocates decency and says disagreement is healthy while contempt is toxic.
He cites research rather than presenting a direct assessment of the newly elected officials’ effects. The essay refers to a Trevor Project survey in which 90% of LGBTQ+ young people said politics had harmed their well-being in the previous year, and an earlier survey in which more than 80% reported feeling better about themselves when positive public role models were present. Slater also says cross-group friendships support children’s well-being and discusses findings on youth civic participation.
Products Worth Considering
Hyperice Hypervolt Go 3 Percussion Massage Gun with Carry Case
Garmin Forerunner 165 GPS Running Smartwatch, 43 mm, Black
Philips Sonicare ProtectiveClean 5300 Rechargeable Electric Toothbrush, Black, with 3 Brush Heads
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Research Behind Slater’s Argument
Slater frames the election as a teaching moment, following an earlier column in which he described the New York Knicks’ championship as an opportunity for parents to talk with children. In this essay, he discusses campaign attacks and adults yelling at screens, as well as candidates asking strangers for their trust.
The article cites a pre-election survey in which 77% of U.S. adults identified the nation’s future as a significant source of stress. It also refers to a national study that followed more than 9,000 adolescents into adulthood and associated volunteering and voting with better later mental health and fewer risky behaviors. Slater summarizes these prior research findings in the essay.
Slater’s central point is that children can admire people without agreeing with their political positions. He notes that Hamilton had been a registered Republican in January and that Turek had previously voted for George W. Bush. The essay argues that disagreement can coexist with respect, and that public examples of varied identities and experiences can make that idea more tangible.
“A message about being decent human beings. A message about how what makes us different brings us together.”
— Slater, describing his son’s message
What the Election Cannot Establish
The essay presents an opinion argument drawing on earlier surveys and research. It does not present a direct test of whether the candidates’ victories affected young people’s mental health.
The essay does not assess how widely children encountered the election stories, which candidates they identify with, or whether exposure to those stories changes their well-being over time. Its examples and conclusions are Slater’s argument about the election’s potential significance for young people.
How Families Can Use the Results
Slater’s proposed next step is for parents and pediatric clinicians to discuss the candidates’ stories with young people, including both the differences among them and the common goal of earning public trust. He also suggests telling children about people who have faced adversity, such as Acton, while avoiding the idea that any one public figure’s experience predicts another person’s outcome.
The essay does not announce a follow-up study or a policy program. Any firmer evidence about the election’s effects on children would require research that directly tracks young people’s exposure to these stories and measures outcomes over time. For now, the article offers a framework for conversations about role models, disagreement and civic participation.
Key Questions
What is the news development?
In a November 4 MedPage Today opinion essay, child psychiatrist Jonathan Slater argued that the backgrounds and experiences of people elected in the 2026 midterms could offer constructive role models for children.
Did the article show that the election improved children’s mental health?
No. The essay cites earlier research and surveys but reports no new study measuring whether the election or its results changed children’s mental health.
Which elected officials does Slater highlight?
He names pediatrician Annie Andrews, Paralympian Josh Turek, pastor Adam Hamilton and former Navy helicopter pilot Rebecca Bennett, along with candidates he describes as making milestones in representation.
What research does the essay cite?
Slater refers to surveys of LGBTQ+ young people, research on public role models, findings about cross-group friendships, and a study following more than 9,000 adolescents into adulthood. The supplied essay summarizes these sources but does not provide full methodological details.
What does Slater suggest parents and clinicians do?
He suggests discussing candidates’ stories with children and using them to talk about identity, resilience, civic participation and respectful disagreement. These are recommendations from the essay, not a tested intervention reported in the article.
Source: medpagetoday.com
