(BALTIMORE – May 4, 2026) — Our community has been propagandized into blurring the line between political and personal engagement. Politics is about power—power to impose an agenda regarding the distribution of resources and the rules that govern society. Too often, our community engages in politics as if it were a collection of social clubs. Political fundraisers and banquets can feel more like prom or homecoming than sites of serious power-building. There is nothing wrong with having events that feel good, but that environment can obscure the fundamental reality: politics is about power, not personalities.
There are three questions I use to assess anyone running for or serving in political office: What is their training and political socialization? Where does their money come from? And who stands to benefit from them holding office? Those questions provide far more insight than speeches or slogans ever will.
Zionism is a political ideology that finds institutional expression in organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In recent election cycles, AIPAC and affiliated groups have spent heavily in Democratic primaries, often opposing more progressive candidates. That spending reflects a broader struggle within the Democratic Party between its moderate and progressive wings, with significant resources being deployed to shape the party’s direction.
It is important to challenge political forces that advance policies that, in my view, are at odds with the needs of our community’s masses. Those forces do not operate in isolation. For example, Howard Friedman, a former AIPAC leader, has served on the board of Sinclair Broadcast Group, a media company that has drawn sustained criticism for the ideological framing of some of its coverage.
In Baltimore, critics have argued that certain media narratives—particularly around crime and youth—have contributed to a public climate that supports more punitive approaches to policy. That includes debates around charging youth as adults, where placement in the adult system can limit access to education and mental health supports that are more commonly available in the juvenile system. Similar concerns have been raised about media framing around City Council restructuring and the role of community-based violence prevention organizations, many of which are led by formerly incarcerated individuals.
The Maryland State Senate race in the 41st Legislative District between incumbent State Senator Dalya Attar and Delegate Malcolm Ruff represents, in many ways, a microcosm of this broader ideological struggle. For voters concerned about the direction of policy and power in their community, this race presents a clear choice: which vision will prevail?
Delegate Ruff’s record reflects support for community-based approaches to violence prevention, as well as positions aligned with broader conversations around reparations and juvenile justice reform. For those who believe those issues should be central to our political agenda, that record carries weight.
At the same time, political decisions have consequences. Delegate Sean Stinnett, a friend and someone I respect personally, has aligned himself with Sen. Dalya Attar in the race for the state Senate seat in the 41st state legislative district. In my view, this conflicts with the direction that many in our community believe is necessary. And while personal relationships matter, political accountability must matter more.
I have seen firsthand how people can privately express agreement with the need to push back against certain political forces, yet make different choices when power and opportunity are on the table. That tension is real. But it is precisely why the three questions still apply: Who shapes the candidate? Who funds them? And who ultimately benefits?
We need people in elected office who are rooted in a politics that prioritizes empowering our community. And we need to be willing to make hard choices at the ballot box to ensure that alignment is real—not just rhetorical.
