McCluskey vs. Vito

It's impressive to see some comparasations between McCluskey and Vito. Both helped other people. We all know how Vito helped people, but McCluskey did also. He helped his study-mates, he helped the sister of his wife in Ireland with the dissease and funeral, he helped the Tattaglia family with their Club. He helped his aunts/uncles with their crisp-fields (? Don't know the word) He earned some respect from several people.

He only hadn't a whole crew beneath him. But maybe he could have been a good mobsters too!

"potato"

But the novel (English-language version) points out that McCluskey was "greedy and untrustworthy to do business with." Vito was a man of his word, he "never disappointed anyone" by failing to keep a pledge.

Absolutely true, the Dutch also mentions that. Another interesting fact was that McCluskey didn't talk with his wife about the things he did, Vito did neither.

I couldn't find the above quote, TB, but I think the beginning of Chapter 11, Book 1, painted a contrary picture of McCluskey, that of an "honest" dis-honest cop.

"He had been a good cop, a brave cop....he was a very tough cop and a very fair one. He never...goofed off...always made his rounds...gave his stores (on his beat) a lot of protection, a lot of service...He also obeyed the system...he would never make trouble to get an extra payoff for himself...he was content with his share of the station house bag...he never tried to make extras...he was a fair cop who took only clean graft."

When Sollozzo offered him $10,000 to leave Don C. unprotected at the hospital, "he took the money in advance, and did the job. When he recieved a call from Sollozzo that there were still two of Corleone's men in front of the hospital, he had flown into a rage... being a man of principle, he would have to give back the ten grand."

Sounds like a real honorable and trustworthy guy to me

McClusky isn't the "oil & vinager" man he seems. He is honest, in a way that only an Italian can appreciate! In Italian politics, the graft that's given and recieved is simply part of business; it has no direct bearing on whether the individuals involved are "honest" or not. McClusky does his job well, and gets paid accordingly.

The "greedy and untrustworthy" quote is from Hagen to Michael, being driven back to the mall after Michael got slugged, p. 128 of the paperback.

This was Tom's opinion, then. I really don't see the evidence for it. The book even states that one of the reasons McCluskey slugged Michael outside the hospital was because he was pissed off that now he'd have to give Sollozzo his $10,000 back. More carelessness by MP, I guess.

Yes, it was Tom's opinion, but his was an informed opinion, since the Corleones did lots of business with McCluskey. But I think the larger issue in this excellent thread is: Is there honor among thieves? Puzo describes the "peculiar" police "code of honor": cops will take bribes to protect so-called "victimless crimes," but "draw the line" at "blood money," like drugs and murder. By that standard of "honor," McCluskey went way over the line. In bodyguarding Sollozzo, he was helping him to establish a major US drugs ring. And by pulling the bodyguards from Vito's hospital, he was actively and knowingly setting up a helpless man to be murdered. He would have been an acccesory to murder--a capital offense in New York at the time.
Vito was scarcely blameless, too. True, he opposed drugs, but mainly because he thought drugs would menace the police and political protection he needed for his regular businesses. And they were hardly "victimless crimes." The big bucks in the illegal gambling business come less from the odds, more from loansharking--a business of broken kneecaps or worse. And every dollar Vito got from the unions was stolen from some working stiff's union dues, which were supposed to buy a better way of life for the working man.

As usual, Turnbull, you've come to the crux of the discussion.

We want to believe that Vito was a "better" man, and we romanticize his actions while we "look down our noses" at how McCluskey acted, but I believe that Vito and McCluskey were cut from the same cloth.

I think McCluskey's realization that he'd have to return Sollozzo's money (because he didn't properly do his job of clearing away all the "hoods" guarding Vito) was more of a business decision rather than some ethical judgment. McCluskey knew there'd be more opportunities to do business with the Mob, and he'd soon regain that large payment plus some more, but only if he returned the money first. Vito would have come to the same conclusion, and acted the same if the shoe was on the other foot.

I may not agree with all your opinions here, TB, but I whole heartedly agree with the above. To me, this is the kind of stuff that these forums should be about.

M.M. Floors, my compliments on an excellent topic.

Difficult. McCluskey is a thief when he does his normal things as Turnbull describes but he uses the money to help others(see first post). He earns the money with protecting victim-less crimes and stuff like that. That doesn't bother me much. (BTW There are people who steal (being thief)in order to survive. They simply don't have enough money and should find a way to get something.)

But by helping Sollozzo he is doing something totally different. Which I can link with anything except honor. The honor is lost at this point. He only thinks about the money he earns and what he should do with the money.

Can you explain this in easier words for me. I don't get anything of it.

Thanks

I'm sorry, MM. Your postings are so good that I sometimes forget that English isn't your native language.
I meant to say that most people think that gambling, Vito's business, is a harmless activity in which no one gets hurt. But in America (and probably elsewhere), "loansharking" goes hand-in-hand with gambling. In loansharking, gangsters lend money to degenerate gamblers at sky-high rates--often as much as 6% per week. If the gamblers don't pay up on time, they get their kneecaps broken, or worse.
Gangsters like Vito often exploit labor unions. They seize control of unions by putting their own men into leadership positions. Then they plunder union treasuries and pension funds. All of that money came from working people's union dues, so union members are victimized by gangster activities.
I hope I've explained this to your satisfaction.

Part of what I think is fundamentally different about the two is how McClusky punched Micheal in anger. Vito never would have done that. In fact, he wouldn't have wanted his enemy to know he was angry. At least not until he was taking his revenge. McClusky was more of a hot head.

Also, he wasn't very observant. Notice how (both in the book and in the movie) in the restaurant he's so into the food instead of what's going on between Solozzo and Micheal. Granted, he couldn't understand Italian. But if the movie is any indicfation, one look at Micheal's face and both men should've known that something was wrong. Solozzo at least showed suspicion when he frisked Micheal in the restaurant.

I doubt Vito Corleone would've let that slip his notice.

To alinea 1: Vito one's slapped Johhny Fontane in the face. So don't use the word never.

To alinea 2: Maybe McCluskey didn't had to pay much attention. He didn't understand Italian, Michael (what Sollozzo/McCluskey thought) was weak and not a real mobster. But the best argument: there were 2 other men of Sollozzo in the restaurant. They were paid to pay attention on what was happening. According to the book they say that Sollozzo watches one of the men to see whether there is somebody at the toilet or not.

BTW Turnbull, thanks for explaining it for me!

1. I remembered that, but I feel that things are different "inside" the family. I don't think Vito would have done that to an outsider.

2. McClusky underestimated him, definitely. But I think that Vito would've been less likely to underestimate anybody. However, he had started to slip as he didn't realize how far the Turk would go... well, he expected something, but not so quickly.

There are several ways in which Puzo tries to draw equivalences between mob life and the "respectable" world. There's Michael telling Kay that all the Presidents had shady characters in their family historiees, and several times Michael as a mobster makes use of or reference to his military experience. My favorite equivalence concerns the Senator on Vito's payroll: "The Senator, like Luca Brasi, was one of the great stones in the Don's power structure, and he too, with this gift, had resworn his loyalty."