The Timelessness of George Orwell’s Politics and the English Language Regardless if the individual reads Newsweek religiously, or educates themselves on even the personal lives of presidential candidates, politics are bound to mislead the viewer. The language used in civics depicts calculated personas that distort all potentially controversial aspects of the speaker. This has been the case throughout the history of not only America, but the world. George Orwell, celebrated British novelist of the twentieth century, points out this erroneous use of language in his 1947 essay, Politics and the English Language. Within the essay, Orwell illustrates the techniques and figurative language politicians use to mislead the public and accomplish the
…show more content…
In Orwell’s words, “People who write in this manner usually have a general emotional meaning -- they dislike one thing and want to express solidarity with another -- but they are not interested in the detail of what they are saying”. This can be easily exemplified by Presidential speeches over the past two hundred years. Abraham Lincoln, in his Second Inaugural Address, repeatedly uses religious metaphors to appeal to his audience. By emphasizing his identity as a Christian to an audience that consisted of mainly practicing Christians, he appealed to them on an emotional level. As he concludes his speech, Lincoln states, “[..] if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman 's two …show more content…
President Ronald Reagan, when discussing the 1983 military capture of Grenada, avoided terms such as “invasion”. He instead opted for the softer term of “rescue mission”, which depicted the United States as a virtuous nation and increased his own popularity. By avoiding the unappealing truth of the situation and replacing words with negative connotations, Reagan distances himself from any disturbing images of war. Abraham Lincoln also employs this technique in his Second Inaugural Address. When speaking of the Civil War, he states “Neither party [North or South] expected for the war the magnitude... which it has already attained”. Lincoln did not want to discuss the more than 600,000 deaths- the most in any American war -that had already occurred in battle, because it would deter the audience’s focus from how to win to the cost of the fight. Additionally, an individual in charge of a situation that so many lost their lives in does not look capable; This would explain Lincoln’s decision to avoid speaking about his losses. These intentional separations preserves positive feelings towards the politician, and improves both their status and
In Orwell’s words, “People who write in this manner usually have a general emotional meaning -- they dislike one thing and want to express solidarity with another -- but they are not interested in the detail of what they are saying”. This can be easily exemplified by Presidential speeches over the past two hundred years. Abraham Lincoln, in his Second Inaugural Address, repeatedly uses religious metaphors to appeal to his audience. By emphasizing his identity as a Christian to an audience that consisted of mainly practicing Christians, he appealed to them on an emotional level. As he concludes his speech, Lincoln states, “[..] if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman 's two …show more content…
President Ronald Reagan, when discussing the 1983 military capture of Grenada, avoided terms such as “invasion”. He instead opted for the softer term of “rescue mission”, which depicted the United States as a virtuous nation and increased his own popularity. By avoiding the unappealing truth of the situation and replacing words with negative connotations, Reagan distances himself from any disturbing images of war. Abraham Lincoln also employs this technique in his Second Inaugural Address. When speaking of the Civil War, he states “Neither party [North or South] expected for the war the magnitude... which it has already attained”. Lincoln did not want to discuss the more than 600,000 deaths- the most in any American war -that had already occurred in battle, because it would deter the audience’s focus from how to win to the cost of the fight. Additionally, an individual in charge of a situation that so many lost their lives in does not look capable; This would explain Lincoln’s decision to avoid speaking about his losses. These intentional separations preserves positive feelings towards the politician, and improves both their status and