Iowa came and went. Super Tuesday came and went. Now the Texas and Ohio primaries have come and gone, and the Democratic Party remains caught in the throes of the primary season much like Frankenstein’s monster — no matter how dead it should be, the thing just keeps on living.

Only this time, it’s patched together with fear-mongering ads of an electorate caught among the accusations of racism, sexism and impractical promises to voters. One such assurance was made by both Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in an attempt to appeal to workers nervous about the economy.

At the Cleveland debate, both candidates voiced their critiques of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Both Clinton and Obama threatened withdrawal if the terms of the trade agreement, namely those concerning environmental and labor relations, were not renegotiated.

Though criticism of NAFTA is surely warranted — there is strong evidence to suggest it has contributed to inequality and benefited business elites, not to mention its devastating impact on labor rights, especially in Mexico — the candidates’ critiques were over-simplified.

Their renunciations of NAFTA belie the complexity of the factors contributing to a tumultuous employment environment. The trade agreement is a paper manifestation of the effects of globalization, and thus offers frustrated workers and pandering politicians an easier target to shoot. In actuality, NAFTA is simply a microcosm of the greater challenges posed by today’s globalized economy.

A more practical renunciation would be of the stagnant strategies of the manufacturing industry. Despite the obvious successes of hybrid technology, most American car companies have yet to adapt their production to the demands of the market. Is it any wonder that Toyota has overtaken GM as the world’s largest car company in sales? However, suggesting change within the manufacturing and assembling industries hardest hit by NAFTA isn’t nearly as popular as lambasting a flawed, but not entirely to blame, trade agreement.

This single event points to a larger trend within the primary. In their reactions, Clinton and Obama dichotomized these valid and complex economic concerns into an issue of the workingman versus NAFTA, ignoring the multitude of problems involved. It’s apparent in other election narratives as well: change versus experience, math versus momentum, male versus female, black versus white. Underneath many of these narratives lies the assumption that one necessarily excludes the other. This practice — be it intentional or an unfortunate consequence of attempts at message palatability — not only erodes the political discourse surrounding the primary, but deprives voters from a nuanced discussion of the policies most affecting them. I believe few would argue that Clinton and Obama’s responses to the hazards of NAFTA address the concerns of those left unemployed by its policies. Once the temporary fix of these sugarcoated and simple solutions wear off, there will still be a disillusioned public asking the same questions.

It’s time for nuanced answers to complex problems. Though in the short run it may be advantageous to delegate counts and momentum indicators, candidates should resist the tendency to slice and dice issues so as to make them more politically attractive. That practice will only promise a further frustrated and dissatisfied populace.

[Reach columnist Sarah Gaither at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]