All of the examples you give seem to be using the term "myopic" to mean focusing on something small, or very specific, while ignoring the larger view.
Like most who mutilate Chopin, he was musically myopic, fawning over each note instead of seeking the longer shape of a phrase, its arc and context, where the real beauty lay.
In this context, we're talking about someone, presumably a musician. The paragraph is saying that he, this musician, "mutilates" Chopin (a famous composer). The musician focuses - myopically - on each individual note, where the real beauty is in how they all work together. He's nearsightedly peering at the notes instead of seeing the song.
Higher learning can offer individuals and societies a depth and breadth of vision absent from the inevitably myopic present.
In this example, we're again using myopic in a sense of not seeing the bigger picture. The "inevitably myopic present" is that we focus on the here and now. The present is inherently not the past or future. We inevitably focus on the present, not the past or future.
When he ran again in 2013, this time without a primary opponent, his campaign had an almost myopic focus on a subject dear to Republicans: job creation.
This one's is talking about the focus of the candidate's campaign - job creation. This person running for office is basing his campaign around one thing. He's focused on this one thing, so much so that it is basically the only thing that he's working with.
So, to answer the initial question: No, it doesn't have a "special meaning" in literary context. It's a word; treat it as one. If you come across a word in a work of literature, the interpretation and nuances of that will change drastically based on the context and surrounding text. It has to be analyzed along with all the other words.
Don't be myopically focused on analyzing this one word at the expense of the others.