The short answer - No; he was the subject of an intense PR campaign by both the Japanese and US government as a method of helping secure the US occupation and positioning of Japan in the post-war Asian power balance.

The position of Emperor in Japan before the war was already a contested position. It had only being re-cemented fairly recently (1868) and had marked the change of Japanese national focus (and in many ways its creation) to that of modernising along the lines of the imperialist nation-state. The Emperor's role shifted to theoretically that of autocratically embodying and leading this new quest and destiny, but also had to compete against oligarchic political players who sought to further their own personal wealth and power whilst joining the great imperialist "game." This peaked in a range of outcomes, but some of the best examples were the influence and intrigue of the Army and Navy, as well as the economic conglomerates (the Zaibatsus).

Why did this matter? Because it meant that by the time of the Second World War, the position of Emperor was intrinsically tied to Japanese imperial ambition, with all the power and crime that came with such a "dream." However, it also meant that the same could be said of the entirety of the Japanese elite classes. The Emperor, whilst symbolically, and perhaps politically, the lynch pin, they were not acting independently or uniquely.

Come the defeat of the Japanese, this symbolic and political importance was made obvious by the refusal of the Japanese elite to countenance the abdication of Hirohito as part of their surrender. His retention of imperial position provided the appearance of the survival of Japan's modernity and power, at least in the minds of the governing class. The Americans saw Hirohito as also being a key player, and his role had been massively focused on in Anti-Japanese propaganda, but there was also a decent understanding amongst the American military and political elite that the reality of Japanese politics was more than just the Emperor. Therefore, they saw the retention of Hirohito as having fairly low risk (as he did not wield the power of the Japanese state) and potentially high reward (he could provide a point of unity and obedience for new, occupied, Japan). So, they agreed to retain him.

However, they now faced a contradiction - how could the new, supposedly democratic, Japan that the Americans were to impose upon the country be represented and ruled by an imperialistic war-monger? The image didn't fit. Consequently- propaganda campaign. By working to "reform" Hirohito's image as benign, constitutional, and somehow American-democratic, the Americans could both promote to the US and international population an image of benevolent, enlightened, US occupation (especially important in the rising Cold War context) as well as attempt to bring the Japanese people behind this new figure and image, and thus establish greater control over the population.

So, just as Hirohito was not uniquely powerful and influential before the war, neither was he afterwards. Once again, he was used by the elites ruling the country to further their own image and goals. What Hirohito actually was ("good" or "bad," insofar as those exist) was irrelevant. What mattered was his image - that he was benevolent, unthreatening, and following the American script.

There is far more about the US occupation that is worth considering- the Conservative turn of the 50s, the socialist uprisings of the Japanese, the impact of the Korean War, the militarization of Japan under the US, individual and collective abuses and responses etc etc, all of which could be examined through the lens of Hirohito. But, I hope this has provided the broad framework for more detailed answers.