Still, it’s important to differentiate between Jobs and his company. People like to identify companies with their CEOs, but the truth is, it’s the board of directors that calls the shots — and the stockholders, mainly funds and banks, who lean on the board. Once before, Jobs and his board went in different directions, with unfortunate results. Now they’re definitely on different tracks. It would be unfortunate if Apple became so enamored of the “common man” that its computers manifested as the technological equivalent of what Mao called “the ultra left,” the left that’s lost its moorings in its devotion to abstract principles of its own making. Already, Macs are being made to look and function like iPhones and iPads, the Babbitts of digital devices, not dumb, not smart, just bright colors for watching videos and exchanging photographs. If Macs cease to be the best personal computers because they’re being dumbed down so that everyone can use one without any wits, it will be a damn shame.

One other thing about Apple: despite the cuteness associated with its products, it’s a global multinational. It outsources most of its parts, most of its manufacture, a good deal of its packaging and distribution — all hurting American workers — and it leaves a fair share of toxic wastes in its wake. It pays well in this country, but relatively few workers per product sold. Moreover, except for a few token efforts to use recyclable parts and packaging, Apple has never taken a political line, never defended an environment, never done anything in the name of the people except sell them stuff. Nice stuff, useful stuff, but from a source that aside from Good Design worships technology, not democracy as you suggest. When a company exceeds ExxonMobil in size, it has an obligation to take a position in society, hopefully one aligned with the society’s best interests. This is even more true when the company serves multiple societies. Google tries. Apple tries less. Perhaps in tribute to Steve Jobs, who perhaps secretly was a progressive politically as well as technologically and in business, Apple can create a foundation to underwrite radical change in global society’s best interest. It can afford to.

First, high marks to you for taking the time and effort to actually make the pitch in Washington. All of us talk about it, but you’re doing something about it. Sincere thanks.

I think that your agenda outline for Friday hits many of the deep concerns that I have. It’s likely that, when you sit down with the President’s staff, there will be a lot of “we hear you and we want to accomplish a lot of what you [we] want to accomplish.” Assuming for the sake of argument that that’s true, I don’t think much of it can be accomplished, given the impasse between the executive and legislative branches.

The President’s recent, gotta-get-reelected change in tone from one of defensiveness and “can’t we all just get along?” to “yes-I’ll-tax-the-rich” may be too little too late, in terms of what can be accomplished between now and the 2012 election. Given that your group’s discussion with the President’s staff must be grounded in the often-cynical realities of politics, maybe the best approach is to let them know that, while you’re their allies against the reactionary forces that seem to have seized the media spotlight and dictated what can get through Congress, your alignment with the administration requires that the President consistently and stridently uses his office to clearly and forcefully push a progressive, humanistic, facts-based agenda.

If he’s going to get reelected, it’s going to be on the basis of distinguishing himself from ultra-conservatives, not trying co-opt their agenda. And, if he’s not going to get reelected, let him at least have made clear what the consequences will be if the ultra-conservatives’ agenda prevails.

Again, with thanks for what you’re doing,

Don Miller