Another way that the Party manipulates language in 1984 is through the use of Newspeak, a system of language which eliminates any words, or secondary meanings of words, which might go against the Party’s teachings, words that might encourage free thought, individuality or thoughts of rebellion: “…to do anything that suggested a taste for solitude, even to go for a walk by yourself, was always slightly dangerous. There was a word for it in Newspeak: ownlife …” (Orwell 70). In his article “Turning to Orwell to Understand Orwell’s Problem: A Sociolinguistic View” published in the April 2006 issue of The Reading Matrix, Pedro Luis Luchini explains that the Party achieves this shortened vocabulary by stripping “all words of unorthodox and secondary meanings, so that each linguistic item would convey only one precise idea, and associations between concepts could only lead to Party-endorsed conclusions” (Luchini 101). But, more than just eliminating words of rebellion, the Party completely pares down their system of language to the bare minimum so that speaking is merely for information. Winston’s friend Syme, a Newspeak specialist, talks about this process: “We’re destroying words – scores of them, hundreds of them, every day. We’re cutting the language down to the bone” (Orwell 45). This is particularly disturbing because it prevents any kind of rich discourse from happening between people, which of course, is the Party’s intention. By reducing language to its bare form, the Party effectively breaks the bridge that links people together and prevents any discussion of a rebellious nature. Richard Rorty discusses the importance of language in his book Contingency, Irony and Solidarity: “There is nothing to people except what has been socialized into them – their ability to use language, and thereby to exchange beliefs and desires with other people” (Rorty 177). Therefore, by limiting the language of its citizens, the Party has established the ultimate means of control: They have eliminated the ability for humans to connect or interact.

            Today’s government has not reached the level of language manipulation of 1984's Newspeak, but politicians frequently manipulate public opinion through the use of loaded language, making it seem as though we could potentially be headed for a totalitarian world like that depicted in 1984. In 1996, for example, Newt Gingrich sent out a memo to the GOPAC, a Republican political action committee, entitled “Language: A Key Mechanism for Control.” In it, Gingrich lists what he calls “Optimistic Positive Governing Words” (Information Clearing House 1) and encourages politicians to use them to “give extra power to your message” (Information Clearing House 1). Words such as legacy, duty, crusade, humane and vision are examples (Information Clearing House 1-2). President George W. Bush takes this type of manipulation one step further, using language to establish a “Good” versus “Evil” mentality when speaking about terrorists. In his article “Bush’s Religious Language,” published in the December 4, 2003 edition of The Nation, Juan Stam refers to this concept as “manicheism” and points to a statement President Bush made the day after the 9/11 attacks, which illustrates this manipulative tool: “’This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil, but good will prevail’” (Stam 1). This is particularly manipulative because it hides the downsides and points up the upsides of the person speaking. It also plays on people’s emotions surrounding an atrocity like 9/11 and uses that to instill both fear and hate in the public. Van Dijk discusses how the public’s emotional ties to the event make them more open to manipulation. “… a very emotional event with a strong impact on people’s mental models is being used in order to influence these mental models as desired – for instance in terms of a strong polarization between Us (good, innocent) and Them (evil, guilty)” (Van Dijk 170). By setting up this image in the public’s mind, President Bush can then manipulate the public into supporting war efforts to rid the nation of “evil” threats. A year later, Stam points out, when gearing up for war in his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush uses not only the word “evil,” but also words with religious overtones, such as “calling” and “blessed”: “the nation must go forth to ‘confound the designs of evil men,’ because ‘our calling, as a blessed country, is to make the world better’” (Stam 1). These words, in turn, manipulate the public into thinking that his call for war is both a means of protecting the country and a divinely inspired mission. So, once again, though we have not reached the totalitarian control of the Party in 1984, our current-day politicians do use language to manipulate the public, indicating that we may be headed in that direction.