The Abuse of the English Language in the 9/11 Presidential Address

“In the normal course of events, Presidents come to this chamber to report on the state of the Union. Tonight, no such report is needed. It has already been delivered by the American people”. These words spoken by President George W. Bush began one of the most important speeches is American history. A mere nine days after the incident, Bush was facing the insurmountable task of addressing a fragile nation looking for answers. His response was a carefully planned attack on Al-Qaeda and segues into the war on Iraq. This address to the nation used what many call political language to try to persuade a nation to follow his cause. This political language contained several of the bad habits or tricks that George Orwell outlined in Politics and the English Language. The four language tricks that he describes are: Meaningless words, pretentious diction, verbal false limbs, and dead metaphors. Although it was written in 1946, many of his theories are still true today and can be found in President Bush’s inaugural address.


The most evident language trick in Bush’s address was the use of meaningless words. In Politics and the English Language, Orwell outlined several examples of what he believes were meaningless words. Two of those words, appear predominately in Bush’s address: Freedom and democracy. President Bush commonly refers to terrorists and Al-Qaeda as “enemies of freedom”. Freedom can be viewed in many ways and it all depends on one’s point of view. People in Afghanistan might see freedom as the removal American forces from their area, while President Bush may see freedom as being able to live a normal life. The definition of freedom becomes quite vague and therefore has no finite meaning. The word democracy is also used without any special meaning to it. Democracy is often used to represent America and how it is the ideal way. Ironically, many critics complain that the American electoral system is not perfectly democratic. Perhaps the best example of this came from President Bush himself, when he won the presidency despite not receiving the most votes. If this system can be called democracy, then it truly shows no meaning for the word democracy.

Like all politicians, Bush used several words in his address that could easily replaced with shorter and easier to comprehend words. Orwell describes these words as pretentious diction and they are found throughout the address. Words like directive, pretense, piety, and pluralism could easily be replaced by words that are more common to everyday people. These words stop the flow of the address because it leaves the reader unsure about the meanings of them.

Many of the sentences in the presidential address feel boring and long due to the use of operators and verbal false limbs. They add syllables to the sentence but aren’t of any more use. These verbal false limbs replace verbs and nouns that could express meaning in much better ways. For example, in the phrase “hand over every terrorist”, the words ‘hand over’ can be replaced by single verbs such as surrender or relinquish. These verbs specify the meaning and make the sentence seem less commonplace.

Metaphors are always an effective way to describe something but sometimes when the metaphors are overused and dead, it defeats the purpose. When the same metaphor is used over and over again, the metaphor loses its meaning and effectiveness. Bush declares that the generation will lift a “dark threat of violence” from its people. Violence is very commonly referred to as a threat and associated with darkness. When the reader sees this, it will not evoke any new images because it has been seen too many times before.

President Bush’s presidential address skillfully rallied a lost nation towards a common goal. However, the bad habits that George Orwell outlines in Politics and the English Language are apparent throughout the speech. The use of meaningless words, pretentious diction, operators or verbal false limbs, and dead metaphors significantly reduce the effectiveness of the speech. Unfortunately, political language typically goes hand in hand with these four language tricks. They are, essentially, what makes political language different from everyday English language. This is the reason why many people complain that political language is hard to understand. If politicians ever want to shed their negative image and appeal to the common man, then they should take a page from Orwell’s book and stay clear of the bad habits that affect the English language.