You could have made that same statement with justification in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.
The hard part of running a country, is not managing technology and ideas, but managing people. While technology may be fast changing, people are much, much slower to change. No matter what the technology landscape, a lifetime of experience in dealing with people will always be helpful.
I'm interested in where you've found the definition of "old people" to necessarily mean a lack of adaptability and innovation.
Where does that definition come from?
Er, no. An earlier spot on the same exponential curve, but there hasn't been a “world of linear growth” in the West since the Industrial Revolution. Maybe, more properly, the preceding Second Agricultural Revolution.
> and clearly defined national boundaries where information can be controlled.
Not really; the breakdown of that feature was recognized and commented on widely throughout the 20th Century, notably in the context of:
(1) the rise of international revolutionary communism,
(2) the rise and increasing dominance of multinational corporations,
(3) the rise of international Islamism
To counter this, these people's life experience is entirely of the 20th century. A world of linear growth and clearly defined national boundaries where information can be controlled. I think because of this that anyone's "experience" is now not only completely irrelevant, but a liability. We live in a whole new world which absolutely no one understands yet, and the only traits which should be desired in a leader are adaptability and the ability to innovate. Something which old people necessarily lack by definition.