It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course, the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take “good”, for instance. If you have a word like “good”, what need is there for a word like “bad”? “Ungood” will do just as well — better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of “good”, what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like “excellent” and “splendid” and all the rest of them? “Plusgood” covers the meaning, or “doubleplusgood” if you want something stronger still. Of course, we use those forms already. but in the final version of Newspeak, there’ll be nothing else. In the end, the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words — in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.’s idea originally, of course. […]I would say they care about redefining it, of course. This is what they are doing.
Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end, we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year, fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline; reality control. But in the end, there won’t be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak. …
— Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part 1, Chapter 5: Syme to Winston
I appreciate your Orwell quote (I've read the book literally dozens of times), but would like to point out that, in the case at hand, the goal is to limit freedom not by reducing the vocabulary, but rather by constantly expanding it - to the point where intelligible discourse (and even thought) become arduous and/or nearly impossible.
Imagine, if you will, the near impossibility of substituting a good, meaningful English sentence like
"Independent, hardscrabble yeoman farmers are the backbone of American society; to deny them their Right to bear arms would emasculate the Nation."
with some "Politically Correct" version.
Of course, it would be possible to "translate" the individual words - but much power and meaning would be lost, and the Language Police themselves are working to continually sanction previously acceptable words (q.v. "gentleman of color," "Colored," "Negro," "Black," "Afro-American," "African-American," "Person of Color") and re-draw lines so that the average speaker has to be constantly on guard about expressing himself.
Regards,