Keeping below the parapet

Is it better to 

1. Follow internal politics and keep yourself visible to the powers that be, by being seen to apply for internal funding sources and/or directing your research towards the topics deemed "hot" by department or faculty heads?
   
2. Ignore most of what goes on internally unless it has a direct and immediate ramification on you, but otherwise carry on your own programme of research regardless of the topics currently being pushed by internal funding or senior management?

I must admit that I tend towards option 2, with occasional forays into option 1.  Perhaps, if those people in senior positions were actually involved in my research area, I might give more thought to their whims.  But they're not.  The only thing they know (or want to know) about what I do is the amount of money I bring in grants and the impact factor of the journals I publish in, so I am at a loss as to why I should pay any attention to what they feel like prioritising.

There are potential negative consequences to option 2.  If people are not particularly visible within their own department (and instead only work on visibility outside), then they could have a hard time making their case for promotion or having top people as referees on their CVs.

Pff!

My department is (in)famous for not being a place that you progress through promotion.  If you want to be promoted, you leave.  Likewise, since nobody in a senior position actually has a clue about my specific field of research, they wouldn't be much use to me as a referee.

There are also negative ramifications to option 1: if people have to follow the trail of breadcrumbs towards topics that the department/faculty likes, they would end up leaving that which interest them most and spending time getting to know new areas and applications.  Even if they managed to find a "hot" topic that interested them, in my university at least, the time and effort required to jump through internal funding hoops is pretty much the same as that required for external funding, where they'd have the same odds of getting 10 times the money.  Worst of all, if people get into internal politics they inevitably have to take sides in someone else's backstabbing, which I would find ethically unacceptable.

So, it seems, it might be better for me to stick wholeheartedly to option 2: keep my head down and do my own thing.  I know I won't be in my present university forever, partly for the aforementioned work reasons (small chance of promotion) and partly for personal reasons (I don't want to live in the UK permanently).  Frequent chats with friends and colleagues in the department show this is a fairly common pattern.  The happiest academics I know are those who work away in their own little empire, whether that empire consists of just the academic plus a student or postdoc, or a mini-army of collaborators and underlings under one roof.  While taking option 1 (and being a visible part of the internal political machine) can lead to an academic being labelled a high-flier and perhaps given preferential treatment regarding internal resources, it does not necessarily lead to a better career.  

Internal grants and internal pats on the back matter a lot less once you move onto another institution, whereas external validation looks good forever.

Of course, I might change my view entirely if I ever move to a university that I want to stay long-term, but, for now, I think it's best for me to keep my head well below the parapet.