Response to "Politics and the English Language"

More Semantics
I thought that this essay was relevant considering that we are at the height of election season and with the introduction of new ways of lazy language ex. text lingo. For me, the essay was thought provoking, and makes me think, as I type this, about my own use of language and the importance of precision.
I agree that often time, in an attempt to be tactful we often use roundabout language and hackneyed expressions which lead to dull, verbose writing. Euphemisms are a common part of language and abstract thought and expression, while important, often replaces concrete thought. Orwell's "translation" of the Ecclesiastes passage was amusing and, though, exaggerated, somewhat accurate.
As it applies to politics, Orwell's criticism with indirect language resonated with my view that politicians are often too vague and conceptual. In an attempt to appeal to votes, offer solutions, and present their political stance, politicians mince words (I'm sure Orwell would cringe at my use of such an overused idiom) and treat questions in a roundabout way. I especially enjoyed his analysis of euphemisms by which the destruction of countries is referred to as "pacification" and the displacement of people is referred to as "transfer of population" or "rectification of frontiers" Terms such as these obscure the thing itself behind a mask of political jargon.
The article, as mentioned before, made me examine my own writing style. While I did not agree with all of Orwell's criticisms, his simple rules are easy to follow and reasonable. While it is a slightly dated piece, this essay is applicable to our modern time.