Paul Harvey was a hugely popular American radio commentator whose broadcasts reached millions of listeners weekly. In the mid‑1960s, he wrote and broadcast a piece titled “If I Were the Devil” as a form of social commentary and cautionary reflection on cultural trends and moral direction in the United States. Although the version widely shared online today isn’t always identical to the original script, the essence captured a hypothetical scenario in which the “Devil” would undermine society not through force, but through gradual erosion of values — starting with subtle influence and distraction.

Harvey’s original piece first appeared in print in 1964 and was broadcast around April 3, 1965. Over the decades, he occasionally updated or reiterated variations of the theme to reflect changing times.

In “If I Were the Devil,” Harvey imagines a plan to weaken a nation from within by whispering temptations and misdirection rather than attacking it overtly. The “Devil” in his narrative would encourage attitudes like “do as you please,” promote skepticism about religion, and normalize behaviors that, in his view, erode social cohesion and moral grounding. The piece emphasizes slow cultural changes — such as shifting educational priorities, altering the symbols and rituals of traditional faith, or redefining freedom in ways that replace principle with convenience — as methods of internal decay.

Although the exact wording varies in circulated versions, widely shared excerpts include lines about influencing young people to doubt religious authority and about the transformation of cultural symbols such as Easter and Christmas. These rhetorical devices were intended to highlight potential vulnerabilities in societal values.

A key point verified by fact‑checkers is that much of the text often shared online today isn’t the original 1965 script verbatim. Snopes notes that many widely circulated versions, especially those heard on podcasts or social platforms, are inspired by Harvey’s work but are not genuine originals and don’t match his early scripts line for line.

However, the general theme — imagining how internal cultural shifts might weaken society — is genuinely rooted in Harvey’s commentary and was broadcast in the 1960s.

Many listeners today describe Harvey’s piece as “prophetic” or eerily relevant because the behaviors and cultural trends he described — skepticism of religious authority, changing family structures, media influence, debates over social norms, etc. — are hot‑button issues in current public discourse. Social commentaries and community discussions often cite the broadcast as highlighting enduring or emerging cultural concerns that seem to align with contemporary debates on morality, technology, and social change.

Although originally delivered in a media environment without social media, smartphones, or internet platforms, the underlying theme of slow cultural influence has resonated with audiences facing modern challenges like rapid information flow and shifting cultural norms.

People interpret “If I Were the Devil” in varied ways:

• Religious commentators see it as a moral warning about secularization and loss of faith.

• Cultural commentators view it as an early articulation of concerns about media, education, and social values.

• Skeptics and critics point out that projecting past social trends onto the present can overstate continuity, and emphasize that such broadcasts blend opinion with metaphor.

That mix of interpretations — from moral reflection to cultural critique — is why the speech continues circulating and being discussed in multiple contexts.

Ultimately, “If I Were the Devil” endures not because it literally predicted specific events, but because it uses a narrative device — envisioning the Devil’s strategy — to highlight real concerns about cultural change. Harvey’s use of metaphor and social criticism has kept the piece alive in public memory decades after broadcast. His emphasis on personal responsibility, vigilance, and awareness of cultural shifts resonates with many listeners who see parallels between his 1965 commentary and contemporary debates surrounding faith, media influence, education, and societal values.