The shadow of the old Josh Kurtz
Stoking the fires of antisemitism in Maryland
I’ll say this up front: I’m genuinely glad to see Josh Kurtz back in print. I really am. Maryland politics is better when he’s somewhere in the mix, even if it’s only once in a while. But reading this latest piece, I couldn’t help thinking that retirement has taken some of the sharpness off his edge. The old Josh — the one who built Maryland Matters into a must‑read — would never have written this article this way.
This one reads less like the work of a top‑flight insider reporter and more like a former insider trying to influence the news rather than illuminate it. And that’s the part that troubles me.
Because the Josh of ten years ago would have dissected the Hoyer machine with a scalpel. The Josh of today is swinging a mallet — and not always hitting the right target.
The faint praise he’s earned
There are flashes of the old craftsmanship. The donor numbers are solid. The redboxing section is classic Kurtz: procedural, technical, a little world‑weary. But the overall structure feels… dutiful. As if he’s writing an assignment rather than an analysis. The pacing is off. The emphasis is off. And the tone — well, the tone is doing more work than the facts.
The part he doesn’t seem to realize he’s doing
Josh is not antisemitic. Let’s get that out of the way. He’s never been that guy. But in this piece, he feeds the fires of antisemitism without ever striking the match himself.
He keeps returning — again and again — to AIPAC, “pro‑Israel money,” and Jewish‑associated donors, even though:
- AIPAC has not spent a dollar in this race
- the only person using the “AIPAC‑aligned” smear is Harry Jarin, a fringe candidate
- the pro‑Israel PACs involved are mainstream Democratic institutions
Yet Josh elevates Jarin — a man who wouldn’t get a paragraph in any other context — because Jarin is the one pushing the AIPAC‑aligned attack. That’s not reporting. That’s amplification.
And when you amplify a fringe attack, you legitimize it.
The old Josh would never have done that
The Josh of his heyday would have contextualized it. He would have said:
- DMFI is a mainstream Democratic PAC
- pro‑Israel donors are not inherently suspect
- AIPAC is not involved in this race
- Jarin is punching above his weight only because he’s swinging a loaded phrase
But the Josh of today lets the insinuation hang in the air. He doesn’t endorse it — but he doesn’t interrogate it either. And that silence is where the damage happens.
The subtle shift in his role
This is the part that feels most unlike him.
The old Josh was the guy who explained the news to insiders.
This Josh is the guy who’s trying to nudge insiders toward a conclusion.
The old Josh framed the landscape.
This Josh is trying to tilt it.
The old Josh wrote with authority.
This Josh writes with intention.
And that’s why the article feels off. Not wrong. Not malicious. Just… diminished. Like a man who still knows the game but isn’t quite in the locker room anymore.
If he keeps writing, maybe the old instincts will come back
I hope he does. I hope he writes more. I hope he gets his rhythm back. Because Maryland politics needs a strong, sharp, fully engaged Josh Kurtz — not this half‑strength version who’s leaning on old habits and new shortcuts.
But this piece?
This one isn’t his best.
It isn’t even his middle gear.
It’s the work of a man who used to be the spark plug of Maryland political journalism, now trying to fire on cylinders that haven’t warmed up yet.
And until he gets that spark back, we’re going to keep seeing articles like this — pieces that don’t cross the line into antisemitism, but wander close enough to the edge that the shadows start doing the talking for him.