Chapter One The Unforgettable Energy Class--that unique energy that makes people truly unforgettable-- is easier to recognize than it is to define. We know it when we see it--but what is "it"? This book will not only help you answer that question, but also to really be a "class act" in every area of your life. When you do this--and it isn't easy--you will literally make yourself unforgettable. (By the way, just as class is easy to recognize, the absence of class is also easy to detect in a man or a woman. That's not something you want people to see in you!) We'll have much more to say about what class is and why it's important in the chapters that follow. You'll have a chance to evolve your own definition of class--and you'll gain practical, powerful tools for making yourself unforgettable to everyone you meet. Whether it's in business or in any other area of life, nothing is more valuable than that. You may not realize the full importance of class right now, but when you reach the last page of this book, you most definitely will. We'll begin by looking at the often unclear meaning of class, as well as the very clear effect it can have in both business and personal interactions. We'll see how class was really the deciding factor at a critical moment in American history, and we'll explore how you can make the lessons of that moment work for you. In subsequent chapters, we'll explore essential elements that compose class in the truest sense of the word. Lastly, in the book's final chapter, we'll look at how class expresses itself through achievement in the material world--for you and also for those around you. This ability to create success for others is one of the most admirable qualities of class. Like a great athlete, a class person always plays the game at a high level and makes better players of his or her teammates as well. To begin our exploration of class and what it can do, let's look at a case in point. There has never been a clearer example of class in action than history's first presidential debate. The debate took place on September 26, 1960. The participants were John F. Kennedy, then a senator from Massachusetts, and Vice President Richard M. Nixon. Over the years, whole books have been written about this event, but it's rarely been discussed from the perspective of class in the way that we'll be using the word. Yet class was a huge factor in the debate. It made the difference in who won and who lost, and in that sense it changed the course of history. John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon were both in excellent form at the time of their televised encounter. Each of them had good reason to feel optimistic about the election. Their rÉsumÉs were very different, but were impressive in their different ways. Each candidate in 1960 had been nominated on the first ballot at his party's national convention. Kennedy, whose nomination had come first, had won impressive victories over the more experienced Senator Hubert Humphrey in the primaries. Kennedy's wins in West Virginia and Wisconsin had made an important point about his chances for gaining the presidency, since there had been some doubt about whether a Roman Catholic could actually win an election outside a predominantly Catholic state such as Massachusetts. Kennedy's religion had given rise to uncertainty within his party, but the Democrats more or less forgot those worries after West Virginia and Wisconsin. Then, immediately after his nomination, Kennedy made a bold and politically practical move in his selection of a running mate. His choice of Texas senator Lyndon Johnson may have surprised Kennedy's core supporters in the Northeast, but now the Democrats had a powerful national ticket. Johnson, who was the Senate majority leader, was a supremely experienced politician who knew Washington inside and out. He was definitely a fighter, and usually he was a winner. Perhaps the only drawback to Johnson's selection as the vicepresidential nominee was that he and Kennedy could hardly stand each other! But Kennedy put aside his emotions to make an effective practical decision. Was that a "classy" move? We'll come back to that question later in this chapter. Two weeks after Kennedy's convention, Richard Nixon became the Republican nominee. In light of what the future held for him when the Watergate scandal broke, it may be difficult to grasp how popular Nixon was at the time of his nomination. In those years America was preoccupied with the nuclear threat from the Soviet Union. Nixon had won huge acclaim when he forcefully argued with the Russian premier Nikita Khrushchev at a tradeshow exhibit. He had also faced down a large anti-American mob during a visit to Venezuela. Nixon seemed to offer security and competence at a frightening time in American history. True, he'd already had a few embarrassing moments. But he'd always come out whole and on top. And it seemed as if he would again. He was definitely the favorite to win the general election. The actual positions presented by Kennedy and Nixon were similar in some respects and very different in others. Both spoke of America's greatness in more or less conventional terms. But Kennedy challenged people's complacency while somehow still sounding positive. In many of his speeches he referred to a "missile gap"--a supposed advantage the Russians possessed in the number of intercontinental weapons. No such gap existed, but, as with his selection of Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy seemed willing to sacrifice certain things to gain his objectives. In light of the Republican Party's generally hard line on defense issues, it may be difficult to imagine Richard Nixon as a dove. But compared to Kennedy, that's how he seemed in the 1960 election. Not long before, President Eisenhower--who had been the supreme Allied commander in the war against Nazi Germany--had warned against the growth of a "military industrial complex" that was threatening to dominate American life. Eisenhower's speech on this topic was worthy of the most ardent dove, and Kennedy may actually have agreed with most of it. But instead, he cast himself as the defender of America's freedom against the Soviet military threat. As the incumbent vice president, Nixon's campaign speeches always referred to a secure present and a brighter future, but he spoke of this in the context of Republican principles such as free enterprise and decreased government spending. Besides the overall message of pro-Americanism, Kennedy and Nixon shared wariness of the Soviet threat and agreed on other foreign-policy issues, although Kennedy put more emphasis on the need to strengthen the military. The similarity of the two candidates' stated beliefs forced the campaigns to seek out ways to distinguish one from the other. The election turned into a debate about experience. Both candidates had come to Congress in the same year, 1946, but Nixon tried to strengthen his qualifications by playing up his foreignpolicy credentials as vice president. The experience issue seemed to be a weak spot in Kennedy's campaign, and before the first debate Nixon seemed to be gaining strength. This was crucial because at the time the number of Democrats was far larger than the number of Republicans nationwide. The race for the White House was so tight that any small advantage could pay enormous dividends. But just as Nixon was finding his strength, several media events took place that had a strong bearing on the outcome of the election. Nixon's focus on his experience in foreign and domestic policy was damaged by his own boss. In the fall of 1960, President Eisenhower was holding a press conference, an activity he had never enjoyed. He was in a hurry to get it over with. Then a correspondent asked what major decisions Vice President Nixon had taken part in making. Eisenhower responded, "If you give me a week, I might think of one." The president was not really trying to slight Nixon. He was trying to make a joke about his own weariness and lack of focus. But the remark was a godsend to Kennedy. It gave him a chance to undercut the whole issue of Nixon's superior experience. Kennedy said, "Yes, Mr. Nixon is experienced--but his experience is in the policies of retreat, defeat, and weakness." Some other problems started to crop up for Mr. Nixon as well. After the Republican National Convention, he had promised to campaign in all fifty states, but a knee infection sidelined him for two weeks. Then against the advice of his inner circle, he returned to the campaign in less than perfect health. And now the tired candidate had to turn his attention to the first-ever televised presidential debate. Nixon had been a champion scholastic debater and welcomed the opportunity to speak with his opponent on national TV, but as the evening played out, the subtleties of media politics lined up against the vice president. Kennedy devoted a tremendous amount of time preparing for this event. The recent success of his televised answers about religion proved that the medium had immense potential for his success. In addition, a strong showing against the highly favored Nixon would establish credibility on the issues and further boost public confidence in his leadership ability. The vice president also came prepared, but the outcome of the debate would not be decided by substance. Nixon also ran into bad luck on other media fronts. Kennedy scored well with blacks when he came to the aid of Martin Luther King Jr. after an arrest in Atlanta. The vice president was caught in a conflict of interest and had to remain silent on the well-publicized event. Kennedy used the press coverage to fortify his compassionate, charismatic image. Late in the race, Eisenhower stepped up his support for Nixon. This action was balked at by the Democrats and possibly made the vice president look incapable of winning the election on his own. The perceived weakness was eventually echoed in the press. Combined with Nixon's poor showing in the first debate, the Eisenhower gaffe, and previous triumphs by Kennedy in the media, small pressrelated miscalculation such as these took their toll on the Republican nominee. JFK was able to put Nixon on the defensive with his unexpected grasp of the facts, but Nixon held his own in responding to the Kennedy criticisms. The major story of the debate became the visual appeal of the attractive Kennedy versus the sickly look of the worn-down Nixon. Several factors contributed to Nixon's poor image. His health problems leading up to the debate had resulted in severe weight loss. A freshly painted backdrop on the set had dried in a light shade of gray that blended with the color of his suit. During cutaways, the cameras caught Nixon wiping perspiration from his forehead. He looked cornered and rattled. Meanwhile Kennedy looked great in front of the camera. It's often been pointed out that people who heard the debate on radio thought that Richard Nixon had won, while the millions who watched on TV considered John Kennedy the clear winner. There's a simple reason for this. Nixon had an excellent presentation, but Kennedy had--or seemed to have--an overwhelming class advantage. What do we mean by class advantage? It doesn't mean that Kennedy was wealthier than Nixon, although that was certainly the case. What it does mean is the first important point to understand about class. John Kennedy's class advantage came in that he seemed cool, calm, and in control. Nixon may have had the content, but Kennedy had the class. Actually, nothing said that night was particularly significant in terms of public policy or world affairs. There were no zingers or sound bites, and the issues that were discussed seem totally irrelevant in today's world. But what have endured are images of a relaxed and confident-looking John F. Kennedy--clearly the class act, despite that Richard Nixon was much more experienced in government and much better known. How did this happen? Amid all that has been written about the first presidential debate, three points stand out. We'll be returning to these points in various forms throughout the book, so as you listen to them now, give some thought to how they may also be present in your life and your career. You may never run for president, but you will surely be facing some of the same decisions Kennedy and Nixon made some fifty years ago. On the surface, those decisions may have seemed to be about technicalities or procedures, but they were really about something else. They were about class--or the perception of class--and about how to most effectively communicate that impression. First, the participants in the debate were there for very different reasons. For Kennedy, the debate was a positive choice. As a relative unknown, he had everything to gain and little to lose. For Nixon, however, it was a constraint. Worst of all, he imposed the constraint upon himself, against the counsel of those around him. Nixon's advisers urged him not to debate Kennedy, but Nixon felt compelled to do so. He felt he had something to prove, perhaps to himself more than to anyone else. So his actions were based on insecurity rather than strength. This is an extremely interesting dynamic--one that can affect any decision-maker, regardless of the external circumstances. The more powerful people become, the more constrained they may feel to prove that they actually deserve their power. They need constant reassurance and support, which often manifests itself in a crew of yes-men so they can head off any self-doubt. Class never expresses itself unwillingly. Class is always a positive, or even a joyful, choice. Even if your actions are objectively class, the positive effect is canceled if the motivation is negative. And make no mistake: negative motivation always reveals itself, sometimes in unexpected and embarrassing ways. There is an essential link between class and communication. Class acts are people who can clearly communicate who they are and what their vision is. You don't have to be the smartest person in the room to be the leader. It is widely accepted by many historians that two of the brightest men to hold the presidency in recent history were Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon. Carter had a degree in electrical engineering, and Nixon had a law degree from Duke. Yet whether or not you agreed with his politics, Ronald Reagan is remembered as a popular and effective president, the man responsible for winning the Cold War, the Great Communicator. When he said, "Tear down that wall," he made himself unforgettable. It wasn't because of any academic degrees he'd earned. It was just because of what he said and how he said it. Unforgettable people speak in terms of vision. Often, surprisingly enough, it's not about what they've done or will do. It's about what they can see. They paint the picture of a world that others can't imagine, and they share their vision with words. They don't use statistics to make their point; they use vivid imagery. Being a great communicator requires two distinct qualities. The first is optimism. Pessimism has no class. An unforgettable person looks beyond any current situation to imagine a better time. When will that time come into being? How will it happen? Those are mere details! Second, a great communicator puts that shared vision into simple words that everyone can understand. It doesn't help to use a big vocabulary. It does help to use language that can be clearly understood by a truck driver and a scientist--simple, understandable, and repeatable. Phrases such as I can see or I imagine or I believe are powerful tools. Your thoughts help paint a picture of that image. For example, it does no good to quote statistics showing that when people enjoy going to work their overall productivity and general happiness improve. No one will listen attentively if you assert the importance of developing a series of systems and processes to steadily increase people's enjoyment of work, so that quality gets better. Those are accurate statements, but who would be inspired by them? But suppose you said this: "I imagine a time not too far from now in which every single person who goes to work loves what they do. This is the world I can see. Can you imagine going to work every single day and loving what you do and the people you work with? How do you think that would impact your work or even your personal life? This is the world I imagine and it is possible if we work together to create it. Join me. Choose to lead. Choose to inspire. If you do, I know we will be successful. If you lead those around you, if you inspire the people around you, every one of us will wake up and love going to work. Are you in or are you out?" The meaning is the same, but the message is very different. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," said John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address in 1961. Why was this unforgettable? Why was he unforgettable? Kennedy did not ask us to follow, nor did he ask us to lead. He challenged us to serve. This is the irony of an authentic class act. Truly inspiring and unforgettable people aren't driven to lead people. They are driven to serve them. This subtle twist of logic earns a good leader the loyalty and respect of those who ultimately serve them back. For people to be unforgettable, they need a following. Why should any individuals want to follow another individual unless they feel that person would serve them and their interests? The more you are able to do that, the more you will earn the trust of everyone around you. Not because you're "the boss," but because you know what people need and you are determined to see that they get it. An unforgettable person wants to help others become the best versions of themselves. An unforgettable person does not propose to do others' work for them. Again, the unforgettable person paints a picture of how others can do it for themselves. And by the way, that's exactly the intention of this book! So please go on to chapter 2. Excerpted from Make Yourself Unforgettable: How to Become the Person Everyone Remembers and No One Can Resist by Dale Carnegie Training (Firm) Staff All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.
