Orwell's thesis in "Politics and the English Language" is that words are increasingly being manipulated in political discourse in order to make lies sound truthful. The examples he provides are of language so complicated and obscure that no one can understand it. He claims that English is becoming overly "latinized" and that the "mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details." English, in his view, is a decaying language in which deceptive writers are using meaningless words and pretentious diction as a cover for false ideas.
Whatever the facts were about language in the 1940s, many objective observers would say that the trends Orwell observed in his essay have not continued into our time as they were. If anything, English in the 75 years since Orwell has undergone a kind of "dumbing down," an oversimplification that corresponds more to the Newspeak posited by Orwell in 1984 than the political language he claimed was typical of the real world in 1940.
But this scaled-down, abbreviated language is perhaps paradoxically the new phenomenon one can compare to Orwell's observations. In our time we have heard phrases from politicians and political aides such as the following:
A: "These are alternative facts."
B: "It's all fake news."
C: "There were some very fine people there on both sides."
D: "Truth is not truth."
E: "Abuse of power is not a crime."
The things all of these statements have in common are: 1) they make no sense (A, B, D, and E are literally nonsense, while C made no sense in the context in which it was spoken), 2) they are all brief, unelaborated statements, in the nature of catchphrases, that were thrown at the listener out of nowhere so that one could not evaluate them properly, and 3) all of them sound incredibly unintelligent.
This is apparently the new normal in political discourse that stands in comparison with Orwell's observations.