I both agree and disagree.
I have thought many times (out loud) that it would greatly benefit conservatives if they owned one of the major broadcast networks.
At the same time, a great revival could spawn such a move by some leader or leadership group.
CBN
The issue I have is with the bolded phrase "It doesn’t matter if the majority of the culture is made up of Christians." It absolutely matters! If the majority doesn't like what the leadership is doing, they will find a way to get different leadership. To your point, I don't have a strong opinion re which group starts things off first. What I'm saying is that there needs to be a cultural influence coming from both groups, or else the influence of either will be short-lived. It's my view that focusing growing the "majority" should be today's priority. IMO we can't elect and sustain Godly leadership, without having the support of a statistically influential voting base.
Seen at a different angle, what really talking about here is whether Christians can have any hope to influence the culture, at least short-term. Is there a behavioral model that can reverse the course of the culture? I myself believe that the blood of Christ is capable of redeeming everything affected by the Fall. I believe that God has given us guidelines for how to behave, as redeemed individuals, in every area of life, and I believe that He rewards such behavior. Further, I believe that the effect of such behavior will be compounded by the number of repentant/obedient souls performing it, to ultimately effect a positive change in culture and politics and art and everything produced by man. So long as Christians are obedient, and increase in number (the majority) and influence (the leadership) they will positively impact the culture around them.
IMO we got into the position we're in, because some Christians have been raised to believe that "You don't polish the brass on a sinking ship!", quoting evangelist Dwight L. Moody in the 19th century. These Christians believe that the culture will not (and cannot) be redeemed by anything - not even by a wholesale repentance and conversion of the population. In their view, nothing short of the physical return of Christ will have any lasting impact on it, and thus the most a redeemed man can hope for is that the cultural rot might be delayed, making a future generation deal with it instead. Their view became the dominant one in Christian culture, and it caused multiple generations of Christians to abandon the culture and leadership of our country to others. And that's where we're at today. What good is it to ask people to repent and convert, and not prepare them for how to live afterward? The Great Commission commands us to make disciples, not converts. A man cannot repent of his old behavior, unless he has a new set of behaviors to substitute for them! And can those new behaviors be expected to "do" anything in his life? In his children's lives? In the culture around him?
Disciples must learn more than just how to make more converts. The "don't polish the brass" view says that living one's life for Christ in doesn't add up to jack squat statistically or sociologically, whereas living one's life for Satan has a statistically measurable, progressively successful effect on society in every era. What response should we expect to a Gospel message that asks people to repent and convert, but not give them hope (and instruction) for the life they will live afterward? I know what response to expect, because we're living in its aftermath today.