Michael’s quest for legitimacy is one of the defining themes of the Trilogy. We’ve discussed ad infinitum how his warped thinking led to his downfall. He sets the stage perfectly in New Hampshire, when he’s wooing Kay:

MICHAEL My father's no different than any other powerful man --(then, after Kay laughs) -- Any man who's responsible for other people. Like a senator or a president.

KAY You know how naive you sound?

MICHAEL Why?

KAY Senators and presidents don't have men killed...

MICHAEL Oh-- who's being naïve, Kay?

Michael had a strong point here, rooted in history: Politicians make the “rules and regulations” under which they operate—and they do it to advantage themselves. In the 19th Century, and into the 20th Century, it wasn’t illegal for most American politicians at every level to take bribes. Representative (and later President) James Garfield, and more than half the members of Congress, took bribes from Credit Mobilier, which was building the transcontinental railroad. NYC’s Boss Tweed took in $10 – $20 million a month in payoffs. The only “ethics” was that they were to vote for the person or corporation that paid the biggest bribe. The politicos could be damaged if their bribe-taking were exposed, but they wouldn’t go to prison. And, since all the other politicos were on the take, it was unlikely that one of their rivals would blow the whistle on them. The bribe-givers were and are “legitimate” businesses and individuals.

Through the 1960’s, it wasn’t against Senate rules for a Senator to be a partner in a law firm that did business with one of his committees. And, even now (I believe), a Representative who’s retiring from the House can keep for personal use any campaign funds he hasn’t spent.

As for politicians having men killed: In Vito’s time, governors regularly called out the National Guard to break strikes—often resulting in workers and their families being killed. The CIA under Eisenhower fomented deadly revolts against legitimately elected leaders in Guatemala and Iran to benefit United Fruit Company and British oil interests, respectively. And many thousands of US soldiers were killed in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan because a succession of Presidents couldn’t find a way to exit without “losing face”—and it wasn’t Uncle Sam’s face that needed saving, it was their own faces. You might argue that the politicians were elected, and Vito and Michael weren’t. But, no one elected politicians to steal, lie and aid and abet murder.

So, what was the difference? Michael’s hubris:

Vito was content to operate in the background, without publicity, paying his bribes and doing his dirty work out of the public eye. His low profile never jeopardized the politicians and judges he paid off; his crimes (including murder) never attracted attention to him or his organization. He was satisfied to run his own little world his way, revered by the Italians he helped, respected by the politicians with whom he worked out a mutually beneficial relationship. He didn't disturb their status quo.

But Michel created for himself a dangerously volatile mixture of lust for nationwide (then global) power, and an overarching, increasingly public, demand to be regarded as “legitimate.” Geary wanted Michael’s money, but he couldn’t tolerate Michael’s ultra-public displays—“…the phony way you try to pass yourselves off as real Americans…” Michael got in his face by wanting him to be at Anthony’s party to accept the donation to the state university—and thus help bestow “legitimacy” on Michael. The Vatican was happy with Michael’s bailout—but not with Michael's flaunting it (including inviting the press to his party), and schemed to get rid of him. Immobilaire may have been run by crooks, but they had an “ancient tradition”—and they didn’t want Michael draping himself with it to become “legitimate.”

Michael brought it all on himself by demanding to write his own rules instead of by finding a mutually acceptable quid pro quo within the rules made by men more powerful than he was--and who he needed.

Your views?