George Orwell was dying when he wrote some of his most piercing work. It’s a grim thought, but maybe that’s why he didn't have time to mince words. In 1946, as the world was still shaking off the dust of World War II, Orwell sat down and penned Politics and the English Language, an essay that basically argues we are all being lied to—and we’re helping it happen by being lazy with our words.
He wasn't just being a grammar snob. Honestly, he didn't care much if you ended a sentence with a preposition or split an infinitive. What scared him was the way people used "ugly and inaccurate" language to hide the truth. He saw a direct link between messy thinking and messy writing. If you can’t say it clearly, you probably aren't thinking clearly. Worse, if you’re a politician, you might be using that fog to hide a corpse.
The Trick of Meaningless Words
Orwell noticed that political speech is often designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable. That's a heavy accusation. He pointed out how words like "democracy," "freedom," and "justice" are used in ways that are totally contradictory. In his era, a Soviet labor camp and a Western parliament might both be called "democratic." When a word can mean anything, it eventually means nothing.
It’s about the "swamplike" quality of modern prose. You've probably seen this in corporate emails or political briefings. It’s that feeling of reading a whole paragraph and realizing you have no idea what was actually said. Orwell called this "gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else." Instead of picking words for their meaning, people just grab pre-made phrases like "take into consideration" or "give rise to" and slap them together.
The Five Habits of Bad Writing
Orwell identified a few specific traps that writers fall into. He wasn't just complaining; he was diagnosing a disease.
- Dying Metaphors: These are phrases like "toe the line" or "stand shoulder to shoulder." They used to be vivid images, but now people use them without even thinking about what they mean. Half the time, people mix them up because they aren't actually visualizing the words.
- Operators or Verbal False Limbs: This is when you use five words when one would do. Instead of saying "caused," someone says "rendered it a matter of necessity." It makes the writer sound "important" but actually just dilutes the message.
- Pretentious Diction: Using Latin or Greek roots to sound sophisticated. Words like "phenomenon," "categorical," or "constitute" often just hide a lack of actual substance.
- Meaningless Words: In art criticism or politics, words like "romantic," "values," or "human" are often used without any agreed-upon definition. They are just vibes.
Why the Passive Voice is Dangerous
One of Orwell's biggest gripes in Politics and the English Language was the passive voice. It sounds like a boring classroom rule, but in politics, it’s a weapon.
"Mistakes were made."
Think about that sentence. Who made them? When? Why? The passive voice allows the actor to disappear. If a politician says "The village was bombarded," it sounds like a natural disaster, like a storm just happened to hit. If they say "We bombed the village," they have to take responsibility. Orwell argued that bad political writing is almost always an exercise in avoiding responsibility.
He uses this incredible, dark example of a "comfortable English professor" defending Russian totalitarianism. The professor wouldn't say, "I believe in killing your opponents." Instead, they’d say something about "the elimination of unreliable elements" or "a necessary stage in the dialectical process."
The imagery is buffered. The reality is scrubbed clean.
The Mental "Ready-Made"
The real danger Orwell warns about is that our language starts thinking for us. If you use "ready-made" phrases, you don't have to think. You just open your mouth and the clichés come out like a stream of sausages.
He describes a speaker who seems like a "dummy." The light isn't behind their eyes because they aren't choosing their words; they are just repeating a script. This "reduced state of consciousness" is exactly what a dictator wants. If people stop thinking about the meaning of words, they become much easier to lead.
Is Orwell Still Relevant in 2026?
Honestly, probably more than ever. We live in an age of "brand-speak," "algorithmic optimization," and "political spin."
Look at how we talk about modern issues. We use terms like "collateral damage" instead of "dead civilians." We talk about "right-sizing" instead of "firing people." We see "disinformation" used as a catch-all term for "things I don't like."
Orwell’s point wasn't that we all need to be poets. He just wanted us to be honest. He believed that if we could simplify our English, we could think more clearly, and if we thought more clearly, we couldn't be easily fooled by the next tyrant or con artist.
It’s a feedback loop. Bad language leads to foolish thoughts, and foolish thoughts lead to even worse language.
How to Fix Your Own Writing (The Orwell Rules)
At the end of the essay, Orwell gives six rules. They aren't laws; he even says you should break them if saying something "outright barbarous" is the alternative. But as a baseline, they are hard to beat:
- Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
- Never use a long word where a short one will do.
- If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
- Never use the passive where you can use the active.
- Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
- Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
The Fight Against "Newspeak"
While Politics and the English Language is an essay, it’s the spiritual father of "Newspeak" from his novel 1984. In the novel, the government tries to eliminate words so that "thoughtcrime" becomes literally impossible. If you don't have a word for "freedom," you can't even conceive of the idea of being free.
While we aren't quite there yet, the narrowing of language is a real thing. Whether it’s 280-character limits or the repetitive jargon of LinkedIn influencers, our vocabulary for complex, nuanced reality is shrinking.
Orwell’s essay is a call to arms. It’s a reminder that language is a tool we should own, not a tool that should own us. When we let our words get sloppy, we let our guard down.
Actionable Insights for Clear Thinking
To apply Orwell’s wisdom today, don't just focus on your grammar. Focus on your intent.
- Audit Your Adjectives: Before you hit send or publish, look at your adjectives. Are they actually describing something, or are they just "filler" to make you sound more certain than you are?
- Identify the Actor: When you read a news story or a corporate memo, look for the verbs. Who is doing what to whom? If the "actor" is missing from the sentence, ask yourself why.
- Translate Jargon: If you encounter a phrase like "leveraging synergistic resources," try to translate it into plain English. If it sounds ridiculous when you say it like a normal human, it probably is ridiculous.
- Visual Check: Orwell suggested that when you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then you hunt for the word to describe it. When you think of something abstract, you are more likely to grab a "ready-made" phrase. Try to visualize what you are saying before you say it.
The defense of the English language isn't about protecting "purity" or tradition. It’s about protecting the truth. If you care about politics, you have to care about the words used to build it. Clear language is the only way to keep power accountable. Start by cutting the fluff out of your next email. It’s a small step, but as Orwell might say, it’s a start toward sanity.