Two methods, do they conflict?

A good friend of mine and myself were recently conversing whether or not God even wants us to try and effect our nations from the top down (Getting into the Government and reforming it from there) or if the Lord calls us to change our nations primarily from the bottom up instead, (Changing people's personal lives which then will change the dynamics of the governments they elect.)

There is a flaw in this sort of thinking, I believe, in that the question is asked in a way that would induce an answer of either one or the other. I believe strongly that both are vital and operate better in tandem than they would alone.

Of course, changing people's lives one by one is imperative in the long run, for if society totally decays there is little hope.
At the same time we still have a few institutions and privileges that are remaining from before and if we lose them entirely it will take much more effort to reinstate than it would to fight a rearguard action until the effects of the people approach takes effect.
I am confident that there is enough people left in our countries that would stand up and say something, in effect taking the people approach, if there was a politician - or a group of politicians - that they could rally behind, ones that would not back down in face of political correct attacks or weak arguments; politicians whose main goal is not power, that they will be free to consistently stand on unpopular opinions simply because those opinions are morally correct, even to the point of risking not being re-elected, much like Wilberforce and his band of parliamentarians known for their Christianity and morals. Politicians who are brutally honest with themselves, not swaying with public opinion, and fair in all their dealings, even if it is not recognized at the time. Politicians who would be dependent on nothing but God, so that pressure could not be exerted financially, mentally or morally to cause them to buckle.

I do not see how this could not take place within one of the current parties unless they would prove hostile to it, which I could not think possible in every case. Freedom of thought and action is still a tenet of our society (At least, they say it is) though I do admit people need to remember that individual party members are indeed human beings and some people definitely need to begin to look at politicians as individuals again instead of as a member of this or that party.

Coupled with the strong Christian movement to persuade individual people on the human level, and with a firm dependence on God, I believe this is the best chance we have remaining to us, not counting Christ's miraculous return of course.
There is enough Christians that if motivated could handle all these plus work on the mission field and everywhere else. God calls us all to different things, all in accordance with His plan, so if we obey His call, who can limit the possibilities?

We cannot play the ostrich and bury our head in the sand to the state of our society, and I believe some of us are meant to get involved in reforming our society from the top down; but just as the Reformation of old touched both the high kings and the low common man, remember, God is no respecter of persons, we must also take that approach if we are to see our society brought back to the way it should be.